High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-01-04Appeal dismissed in limine.

L.A.A. No.1329 of 2010

Case / Petition Number:LA.A. No.1329 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. BALAKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2011-01-04
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal fails and will stand dismissed in limine.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed in limine.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.P. Vijayakumar
K.P. Sankaran Nair

Respondents

The State of Kerala, represented by the District Collector, Kollam, Kollam - 691 013

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri B. Suresh Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Latha T. Thankappan (Sr.)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Land Acquisition Appeal arises from a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act concerning compensation for land acquired for the Chavara branch canal of the Kallada Irrigation Project in Sasthamcotta village, Kollam. The landowners, the claimants, were awarded Rs. 4,197 per Are, far short of their claim of Rs. 34,580 per Are. They did not pursue a reference under Section 18 initially but later learned that persons under a different award (LAR.20/92) had received higher compensation for lands acquired under the same 4(1) notification. Pursuant to Section 28A, the claimants obtained a reference and the Reference Court redetermined compensation based on the LAR.20/92 order. In the enquiry, the claimant sought reliance on LAR.123/87 to justify higher compensation. The Subordinate Judge did not place reliance on the LAR.123/87 award, noting it pertained to a different notification under 4(1). The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. supports the proposition that a 28A(3) reference may award higher compensation than the amount awarded to the party relied upon in the reference. The State pleader argued that Ramakrishna Rao does not establish such a broad rule and that LAR.123/87 is inapplicable due to a different notification. The High Court held that Ramakrishna Rao does not authorize higher compensation in a 28A(3) reference and affirmed the Subordinate Judge’s view. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 4(1) notificationSection 18Section 28A(3)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Parity in compensation under Section 28A(3) to maintain equity with 18 references
Legislative intent to relieve illiterate and inarticulate claimants (parity principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the 28A(3) reference was designed to give relief to those who did not invoke Section 18, so as to achieve parity among all landowners affected by the same notification. They argued that if a co-claimant benefited under a prior award (LAR.20/92), the 28A(3) reference could lawfully grant compensation higher than the party relied upon. They relied on Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. as authority for a broader proposition that a 28A(3) reference can award higher compensation than the referenced judgment. They asserted that LAR.123/87, though concerning a different notification, demonstrates the availability of higher rates and should be considered. They urged that the legislative aim of 28A(3) is to relieve illiterate and inarticulate claimants and to secure parity with those who invoked reference under Section 18, thus preventing inequitable results.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that Ramakrishna Rao does not establish a broad rule allowing higher compensation in a 28A(3) reference beyond what is accorded to those who invoked Section 18. It was stressed that the judgment in LAR.123/87 relates to a different notification under Section 4(1) and cannot be used to enhance compensation for the present acquisition. The respondents argued that 28A(3) is intended to ensure parity with those who sought reference under Section 18, not to confer greater benefits on late applicants. The court was urged to affirm the Subordinate Judge’s approach and reject reliance on LAR.123/87 and the broader Ramakrishna Rao proposition as applicable here.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.	2010(4) KLT 255 SC	Distinguished	The Supreme Court's decision is not a generalized authorization that a 28A(3) reference can award higher compensation than the party referenced; the Kerala High Court distinguishes its ratio, clarifying that the Ramakrishna Rao context concerned whether a party can seek a reference under 28A(3) when previously favored, and does not endorse a broad higher- awarding rule across all 28A(3) references.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against L.A.A. No.1329 of 2010 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1329 of 2010(B) -------------------------------LAR.78/2006 of SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------------- 1. K.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, VALIYAZHIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM - 690 521. 2. K.P.SANKARAN NAIR, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, KOLLAM - 691 013. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN (SR.) THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. -----------------------------------------------L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of January, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _Pius C. Kuriakose, J_ The appellants who were claimants before the Reference Court in a reference under Section 28A(3) are aggrieved in that, the learned Subordinate Judge refused to place reliance on the judgment in LAR.123/87, a copy of which was produced by the appellants in the enquiry conducted by the Reference Court. The properties belonging to the appellants situated in Sasthamcotta village of Kollam District was acquired for the construction of Chavara branch canal of Kallada Irrigation Project pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 15/01/83. They were awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,197/- per Are as against a claim of Rs.34,580/- per Are. The appellants, however, did not seek L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -2- a reference under Section 18. However, on coming to know that enhanced compensation has been awarded by the Reference Court to the claimant in LAR.20/92 whose properties had been acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification, he filed an application under Section 28A for redetermination of the compensation payable to him on the basis of the court award in LAR.20/92. The Land Acquisition Officer allowed the above application and awarded him enhanced compensation at the rates fixed by the Reference Court under its judgment in LAR.20/92. Being not satisfied with the above award, the appellant sought for a reference under Section 28A(3) which was favourably considered. In the enquiry held by the court in the 28A(3) Reference, the appellant relied on another court award in LAR.123/1987. Under the above award rates higher than the rates awarded under LAR.20/92 had been awarded to the party thereto. The learned Subordinate L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -3- Judge did not become inclined to place any reliance on the award in LAR.123/1987. According to the court, the appellant who had relied on the court award in LAR.20/92 is not justified in seeking enhancement higher than what had been awarded to the party in LAR.20/92. It was also noticed incidentally by the learned Subordinate Judge that the acquisition covered by LAR.123/87 was pursuant to a different notification under Section 4(1). 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. Sri.B.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants addressed arguments on the basis of those grounds. He placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in _Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Com. Ltd. (2010(4) KLT 255 SC)_ . According to the learned Counsel, the above judgment is authority for the proposition that a claimant in a reference under Section 28A(3) can be L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -4- awarded higher compensation than what was awarded to the party to the judgment relied on by him in his application under Section 28A. Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Government would oppose the submission of Sri.Suresh Kumar. She would submit that the Supreme Court does not lay down the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant by its judgment in _Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Com. Ltd. (2010(4) KLT 255 SC)_ . She submitted further that at any rate, the judgment in LAR.123/87 cannot have any relevance as the above judgment pertains to acquisition pursuant to an entirely different notification. 3. We have considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We are not in a position to accept the argument of Sri.Suresh Kumar that the judgment of the Supreme Court in _Ramakrishna Rao's case_ (cited supra) is authority for the proposition that in a reference under Section 28A(3), the L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -5- claimant can be awarded compensation higher than what had been awarded to the party to the judgment relied on by the claimant in his application under Section 28A. On going through the judgment of the Supreme Court in _Ramakrishna Rao's case_ (cited supra) what we find is that their Lordships were essentially considering the question whether a person whose application under Section 28A had been favourably considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and who had been granted the benefit of higher compensation is an aggrieved party entitled to seek a reference under Section 28A(3). It is that question which is answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, however, have cautiously observed in paragraph 11 of the judgment that the Reference Court considering the Reference under Section 28A(3) “will have to bear in mind that a person who has not sought for the reference under Section 18 cannot get L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -6- compensation higher than the one payable to those who had sought reference under that Section”. A survey of various judicial precedents governing Section 28A will reveal that the legislative intentment underlying the above provision is to give relief to an illiterate and inarticulate person who had omitted to invoke the provision for reference under Section 18 and thereby to ensure that there is a parity in the compensation which is ultimately received by persons whose properties were acquired for a public purpose pursuant to the very same notification. We do not think that it has ever been in the intention of the legislature to confer more benefits upon such illiterate and inarticulate persons than those persons who acted promptly and sought for reference under Section 18. If the argument of Sri.Suresh Kumar is accepted, the same will amount to conferring more benefits on the appellants than what had been given to the party in LAR.20/92 on the basis of which only the appellant could file L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -7- his application under Section 28A. We do not find any illegality or infirmity about the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge. Appeal fails and will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-