K.S. RAJAN (D) THROUGH LRS versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR. on 10 August 2018

1064

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 9 S.C.R.

A

K.S. RAJAN (D) THROUGH LRS

v.

THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 6281-6282 of 2009)

BAUGUST 10, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]

Land Acquisition:

Acquisition of land – Compensation for ‘Dry’ land, and forC‘Chira’ land and for ‘Wet’ land – Determination of – Held: In viewof nature of ‘Wet’ land, its surroundings and location and similaritywith the land owned by other landowners to whom compensationwas awarded @ Rs. 2000/- per cent, the appellant-landowners areentitled to compensation for ‘Wet’ land @ Rs. 2000/- per cent inplace of Rs. 500/- – The rates of ‘Dry’ and ‘Chira’ lands do not callDfor any interference – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4,6, 11 and18.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The award of Rs. 2000/- per cent for the wet landEappears to be just proper and reasonable keeping in view thenature of the land, its surroundings and location and similaritywith the land owned by other landowners to whom compensationwas awarded at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per cent. It representscorrect market value of the wet land on the date of acquisitionand was, therefore, rightly determined by the Reference CourtFin cases of other landowners in relation to their lands acquired inthese proceedings. The appellants are entitled to claimcompensation for their wet land at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per centin place of Rs. 500/- per cent determined by the High Court inthe impugned order. As a necessary consequence, the appellantsGare also entitled for other statutory compensation payable underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, keeping in view the enhancementmade by this Court. So far as the rates of other two nature oflands are concerned, namely, dry and chira, their rates do not callfor any interference. [Paras 18-20] [1067-G-H; 1068-A-C]

H

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6281-6282 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2003 and 06.12.2006of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in LAA. No. 905 of 1995 andReview Petition No.205 of 2004 respectively.

Chandan Kumar Mandal, Ajay Singh, Romy Chacko, Haris Beeran,R.S. Jena, Dev Prakash, C. K. Sasi, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. These appeals are filedagainst the final judgment and order dated 05.03.2003 passed by theHigh Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in LAA No.905 of 1995 wherebythe Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by theoriginal appellant herein. Against the said order, the appellant filed reviewpetition being R.P. No.205 of 2004 which was also dismissed.

2. In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in theseappeals, it is necessary to set out few relevant facts hereinbelow.

3. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, the appellantdied and his legal representatives were brought on record.

4. The original appellant is the owner of the land measuringaround 4.30 acres situated in the District of Kottyam (Kerala). TheState of Kerala issued a notification dated 25.11.1980 under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short called “the Act”) and acquiredtotal land measuring around 30 acres in Kottayam Municipality forimplementation of “multipurpose development scheme at Kodimatha”on the acquired land. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 ofthe Act. The appellant’s land (4.30 acres) was also acquired in theseacquisition proceedings by notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) then held an enquiry, ascontemplated under Section 11 of the Act, for payment of compensationto the landowners and by his award dated 06.08.1984 determined thecompensation as under:

For Dry land:Rs.4631/- per centFor Chira land:Rs.1725/- per centFor Wet land:Rs. 203/- per cent A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A6.The appellants felt aggrieved by the determination made bythe LAO and sought reference to the Civil Court. By award dated28.02.1990, the Reference Court re-determined the compensation asunder:

B

7. Felt aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court, the Statefiled an appeal in the High Court of Kerala. The High Court, by orderdated 23.06.1992 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to theCReference Court for fresh determination. After the remand, theReference Court by award 07.01.1995 re-determined the compensationas under :

D

8. By the aforesaid award passed by the Reference Court, theappellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal in the High Court. By impugnedorder, the High Court made partial modification in the compensation andEdetermined the compensation as under:

F9.The appellant felt aggrieved by the order passed by the HighCourt and filed review petition in the High Court. By order dated02.09.2003, the High Court disposed of the review petition and madepartial modification in the compensation as under:

G

10. The original appellant (landowner) felt aggrieved by the orderof the High Court passed in main appeal as well as in the review petition,filed the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.H

11. So far as the appellants are concerned, they are mainlyconcerned with the determination made by the Courts below for the“wet land” and “chira land”.

12. Therefore, the short question, which arises for considerationin these appeals, is whether the determination made by the Courts belowin relation to “wet land” and “chira land” is just and proper or it requiresany modification by way of enhancement as claimed by the appellants(landowners) in these appeals.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

14. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellantsbrought to our notice that the Reference Court in another case of thelandowners, whose lands were also acquired in these very acquisitionproceedings, determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- percent for the wet land.

15. It was his submission that the determination made by theReference Court was not challenged by the State and hence it becamefinal. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that since the appellants’land and the other landowners’ land, who were awarded compensationin these very acquisition proceedings, are identical in all respects,therefore, they are also entitled to claim the compensation at the samerate, i.e., Rs. 2000/- per cent which was awarded to other landownersfor their wet land.

16. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for theappellants. It is more so when the learned counsel for the respondentscould not dispute this factual statement except to support the reasoningand the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned order.

17. Even otherwise on perusal of the entire record of the caseand the findings of all the Courts below, we are of the opinion that thefindings recorded by the Reference Court in the earlier round of litigationawarding Rs. 2000/- per cent for the wet land though set aside by theHigh Court in the earlier round yet it deserves to be restored again.

18. In other words, in our view, the award of Rs.2000/- per centfor the wet land appears to be just, proper and reasonable keeping inview the nature of the land, its surroundings and location and similaritywith the land owned by other landowners to whom compensation wasawarded at the rate of Rs.2000/- per cent. In our opinion, it represents A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Acorrect market value of the wet land on the date of acquisition (25.11.1980)and was, therefore, rightly determined by the Reference Court in casesof other landowners in relation to their lands acquired in these proceedings.

19. So far as the rates of other two nature of lands are concerned,namely, dry and chira, their rates do not call for any interference and norBany attempt was made by the appellants to question its legality and, inour view, rightly.

20. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view thatthe appellants are entitled to claim compensation for their wet land atthe rate of Rs. 2000/- per cent in place of Rs. 500/- per cent determinedCby the High Court in the impugned order. As a necessary consequence,the appellants are also entitled for other statutory compensation payableunder the Act keeping in view the enhancement made by this Court.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed andare hereby allowed in part. The Impugned order is modified to the extentindicated above.D

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals partly allowed.

E

F

G

H