Supreme Court of India
MURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYAN versus STATE OF KERALA on 2 March 2021
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
AMURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYAN
v.
STATE OF KERALA
(Civil Appeal No. 138 of 2012)
BMARCH 2, 2021
[INDU MALHOTRA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.28(A) and s.4(1) – Re-determination of compensation in accordance with enhancedcompensation awarded to other land owners when lands acquired underCa common Notification – Lands owned by appellant, his father and hisbrother, which were situated in the same survey number, acquired undera common Notification issued u/s.4(1) in the year 1981 – Award ofLand Acquisition Officer was contemporaneously challenged byAppellant, his father and his brother in the year 1997 in separateDReference petitions – In Reference petitions filed by appellant’s fatherand brother, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8,500/- per Are – In case of appellant however, the Reference Court held thathis Reference Application was barred by limitation – Relying upons.28(A), claim of appellant for re-determination of compensation inaccordance with enhanced compensation awarded to his father andEbrother – Held: The Reference Court did not advert to earlier judgmentspassed by the same Court in Reference Applications filed by father andbrother of Appellant, wherein a uniform rate of Rs. 8,500 per Are wasgranted – The Reference Court did not hold that delay in filing ReferencePetitions in the case of father and brother of Appellant was a ground toFdeny them relief – Land belonging to Appellant is similarly situated inthe same Survey – No reason why compensation awarded in ReferenceApplications filed by father and brother of Appellant is not granted toAppellant @ Rs.8,500 per Are for land which was acquired under thesame Notification.GAllowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The Reference Court has not even adverted to theearlier judgments passed by the same Court in L.A.R. No. 25/1997filed by the father, and L.A.R. No. 22/97 filed by the brother of theAppellant, wherein a uniform rate of Rs. 8,500 per Are was granted.
H
The Reference Court did not hold that the delay in filing theReference Petitions in the case of the father and the brother of theAppellant was a ground to deny them relief. The land belonging tothe Appellant is similarly situated in the same Survey No. 166. Thereis no reason why the compensation awarded in L.A.R. No. 22/97and L.A.R. No. 25/97 is not granted to the present Appellant @Rs.8,500 per Are for land which has been acquired under the sameNotification dated 11.05.1981. It is considered appropriate to grantcompensation to the Appellant @ Rs.8,500 per Are for the land ownedby him. The Appellant is entitled to Solatium @ 30% of the amountawarded, and other benefits under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as well as half of the costs incurredin the proceedings. Appellant is further entitled to Interest at thesame rate as awarded to the claimants in L.A.R. No. 22/97 and L.A.R.No. 25/97 filed at the instance of the father and brother of theappellant. [Paras 15, 16][170-A-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 138 of2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2008 of the High Courtof Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P.(C).NO.29939 of 2008(L)..
Abhilash MR, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mohammed Sadique, Ms.Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Advs. for the appellant.
C. N. Sreekumar, Sr. Adv., G. Prakash, Advs. for the respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present Civil Appeal pertains to an area of 30.1 Ares of landcomprising of 28.89 Ares of wet land and 1.21 Ares of dry land situatedin Survey No. 166/5-5 in Cherthala North Village, Kerala owned by theAppellant, which was acquired vide Notification issued under Section4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 11.05.1981. The land wasacquired for the public purpose of construction of the Ernakulam-AlappuzhaKayanukulam BG railway line.
2. The land of the father of the Appellant comprised in Survey No.166/9-A, as also the land of his brother viz. Sugandhan Sanu comprisedin Survey No. 166/1A-4 were acquired by the same Notification.
ABC
D
E
F
G
H
3. Possession of the lands was taken on 09.11.1981. The LandAcquisition Officer vide Award dated 05.04.1982 determined thecompensation of these lands at Rs. 454 per Are for wet land, and Rs.2,137per Are for dry land.
A
On 29.04.1982, the Appellant-landowner was paid an amount ofBRs.18,764.30 towards compensation.
4. The Appellant herein filed Reference Petition bearing L.A.R.No. 23/97 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cherthala. SimilarReference Petitions were filed by the father of the Appellant being L.A.R.No. 25/97, and the brother of the Appellant being L.A.R. No. 22/97before the Subordinate Court.C
5. The Reference Court vide judgment and order dated 14.03.2001passed in L.A.R. No. 25/97 filed by the Appellant’s father, enhanced thecompensation to Rs.8,500 per Are.
6. Subsequently, in Reference Petition being L.A.R. No. 22/97Dfiled by the brother-Sugadhan Sanu, the Court of Subordinate Judge,Cherthala placing reliance on the judgment dated 14.03.2001 passed inthe father’s case, enhanced the compensation for the land of the brothercomprising of 22.80 Ares to Rs.8,500 per Are, after deducting the amountwhich had already been paid. The Subordinate Court granted Solatium@ 30% of the amount awarded, and other benefits under Section 23(1A)Eand Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as well as half of thecosts incurred in the proceedings. The applicant was also granted Interest@ 12% p.a. for the period commencing from 11.05.1981 till 09.11.1981,and Interest @ 9% p.a. for a period of one year from 10.11.1981 to09.11.1982, and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of realisationFof the aggregate amount.
7. In the case of the Appellant, the Reference Petition being L.A.R.No. 23/97 filed on his behalf was taken up for hearing on 02.08.2001.However, since no lawyer represented him before the Court, it wasrecorded that the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer wasGadequate, and the Reference was answered accordingly.
8. Aggrieved by the Order dated 02.08.2001, the Appellant filedI.A. No. 263/2004 seeking restoration of his Reference Petition on theground that his counsel could not appear on the date of hearing.
The Reference Court dismissed the Application for restoration ofHthe Reference Petition.
9. The Appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 10902/2006 before the KeralaHigh Court to challenge the Order of the Reference Court dated02.08.2001, and the Order dismissing the Application for Restoration.The High Court vide Order dated 17.10.2007 set aside the Order of theReference Court dated 02.08.2001, and restored L.A.R. No. 23/97 tothe file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cherthala. The learnedSubordinate Judge was directed to decide the matter after giving anopportunity of hearing and liberty to adduce evidence to both the claimantand the Government, and decide it in accordance with law.
10. On remand, the Reference Court vide order dated 28.03.2008once again held that the Reference Application was barred by limitation,since it was filed beyond six months from the date of the knowledge ofthe Collector’s Award. In these circumstances, the Court held that itwas not bound to answer the Reference, and declined to answer thesame.
11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the present Appellantthen filed W.P. (C) No. 29939/2008 before the High Court of Kerala.The High Court vide the impugned order held that in the absence of anyconvincing explanation from the side of the Appellant regarding theinordinate delay of 15 years, it would not be proper to interfere with thereasoned order passed by the Subordinate Judge.
12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant has filed thepresent Appeal before this Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe impugned judgment and the documents placed on record.
13. From a perusal of the records, we find that the ReferenceCourt had awarded an amount of Rs. 8,500 per Are for the lands ownedby the father and brother of the Appellant under the same Notification.The land owned by all three parties is comprised in the same Survey No.166.
14. The Reference Petitions in all the three cases were filed bythe Appellant, his father, and his brother contemporaneously in the year1997, to challenge the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
The Appellant relies on Section 28(A) of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 to submit that the Act conferred a right on persons interestedwhose lands were acquired by a common Notification, to claim re- A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Adetermination of the compensation in accordance with the enhancedcompensation awarded by the Civil Court to other land owners.
15. We find that the Reference Court has not even adverted to theearlier judgments passed by the same Court in L.A.R. No. 25/1997 filedby the father, and L.A.R. No. 22/97 filed by the brother of the Appellant,Bwherein a uniform rate of Rs. 8,500 per Are was granted. The ReferenceCourt did not hold that the delay in filing the Reference Petitions in thecase of the father and the brother of the Appellant was a ground to denythem relief. The land belonging to the Appellant is similarly situated in thesame Survey No. 166.
C16. We see no reason why the compensation awarded in L.A.R.No. 22/97 and L.A.R. No. 25/97 is not granted to the present Appellant@ Rs.8,500 per Are for land which has been acquired under the sameNotification dated 11.05.1981. We consider it appropriate to grantcompensation to the Appellant @ Rs.8,500 per Are for the land owned byhim. The Appellant is entitled to Solatium @ 30% of the amount awarded,Dand other benefits under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894, as well as half of the costs incurred in theproceedings. Appellant is further entitled to Interest at the same rate asawarded to the claimants in L.A.R. No. 22/97 and L.A.R. No. 25/97 filedat the instance of the father and brother of the appellant.
E
17. In the aforesaid terms, the Appeal is allowed with no orders asto costs. The judgment of the Reference Court as also that of the HighCourt are set aside.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
FBibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
G
H