LA.App. Nos. 467 of 2014 & 788 of 2014, State of Kerala v Jain Raj S/o Devadanam (Grace Blossom)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **WEDNESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **LA.App..No. 467 of 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31-10-2013 IN LAR 2/2010 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** **JAIN RAJ S/O. DEVADANAM(LATE), 'GRACE BLOSSOM', EDAKKODE DESOM, NEMOM P.O., PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020.** **ADV.SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018 ALONG WITH LA.App.788/2014, THE COURT ON 19.12.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A.Nos.467/2014 & 788/2014 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **WEDNESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 LA.App..No. 788 of 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31-10-2013 IN LAR 2/2010 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **JAIN RAJ S/O.DEVADANAM(LATE)'GRACE BLOSSOM, EDAKKODE DESOM, NEMOM P O, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN** **SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **THE STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018 ALONG WITH L.A.A.NO.467 OF 2014, THE COURT ON 19.12.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 L.A.A.Nos.467/2014 & 788/2014 ## **V.CHITAMBARESH &** ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.** ************************** L.A.A.Nos.467 of 2014 & 788 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of December, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **R.Narayana Pisharadi, J** These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara in L.A.R.No.2/2010. 2. An extent of 13.06 Ares of land in Vizhinjam Village was acquired for the purpose of Tsunami Rehabilitation Project. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 11.04.2008. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for land fixing the value of the land at Rs.62,987/per Are. 3. Dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the owner of the land initiated reference L.A.A.Nos.467/2014 & 4 788/2014 proceedings. During the trial of the reference case, AW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked on the side of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced by the State but Ext.R1 series documents were marked on its side. The reference court refixed the value of the land acquired at Rs.1,50,000/- per Are and enhanced the compensation accordingly. Aggrieved by the award passed by the reference court, the State has filed the appeal L.A.A.No.467 of 2014. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the reference court, the claimant has filed the appeal L.A.A.No.788 of 2014. 4. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the claimant. We have also perused the records. 5. The claimant had produced Exts.A1 and A2 documents before the reference court in support of his plea for enhancement of compensation. Ext.A1 is the copy of the judgment of the reference court in the case L.A.R.No.82/2005. Ext.A2 is the copy of sale deed No.2263/08 by which the claimant purchased the L.A.A.Nos.467/2014 & 788/2014 5 property acquired. 6. Ext.A1 judgment relates to acquisition of land in a different village for a different purpose. The value of that land fixed by the reference court as per Ext.A1 judgment is Rs.2,00,000/- per Are. In the instant case, the reference court found that the land involved in the case in which Ext.A1 judgment was delivered is situated in the same locality. However, there was no material before the reference court to find that the property involved in that case and in the present case are similar or similarly situated. But, ultimately, on the finding that the property covered by Ext.A1 judgment is situated near the property involved in the present case, the reference court fixed the compensation for land at Rs.1,50,000/- per Are. 7. Ext.A2 is sale deed No.2263/08 by which the claimant purchased the land which was acquired. He purchased the property on 06.09.2008, after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The total consideration of the entire extent of 13.06 Ares of land paid by L.A.A.Nos.467/2014 & 788/2014 6 the claimant is only Rs.7,00,000/-. Though the reference court has taken note of these aspects, the court failed to note the significance of the transaction covered by Ext.A2 document. When the claimant had purchased the property after publication of the notification and the total consideration for the property paid by him was only Rs.7,00,000/-, there is no basis or logic for awarding compensation of Rs.19,59,000/- for the same property at Rs.1,50,000/- per Are (1,50,000 x 13.06) . It is to be noted that in case a purchaser has not shown the exact amount of consideration paid by him in the sale deed to save the stamp duty under the Registration Act, 1908, such a dishonest vendee is not required to be protected by the Court (See **Pehlad Ram v. Haryana Urban Development Authority : AIR 2014 SC 793** ). 8. The claimant is a person who purchased the property after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Any person who purchases land, after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land L.A.A.Nos.467/2014 & 788/2014 7 Acquisition Act, does so at his/her own peril. Any alienation of land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, titles and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder. If any subsequent purchaser acquires land, his/her only right would be subject to the provisions of the Act and/or to receive compensation for the land (See **Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P : AIR 1996 SC 540** ). The original owner has the right to the compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act. Consequently, though the subsequent purchaser acquires no title to the land, he would be entitled to step into the shoes of the owner and claim payment of the compensation, but according to the provisions of the Act. It is settled law that the price prevailing as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is the price to which the owner or person who has an interest in the land is entitled to. L.A.A.Nos.467/2014 & 788/2014 8 Therefore, the purchaser, as a person interested in the compensation, since he steps into the shoes of erstwhile owner, is entitled to claim compensation (See **U.P Jal Nigam v. M/s Karla Properties : AIR 1996 SC 1170** ). 9. As noticed earlier, when the claimant purchased the property after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the total amount of consideration paid by him was only Rs.7,00,000/-. The value of the land at the time of notification cannot be, normally, higher than the amount shown in Ext.A2 document. In such circumstances, we find that the matter requires reconsideration by the reference court. The case has to be remanded to the reference court for fresh consideration. 10. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment in L.A.R.No.2/2010 of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara is set aside. The case is remanded to the reference court for fresh consideration. The claimant as well as the State is entitled to adduce further evidence in the case. The L.A.A.Nos.467/2014 & 9 788/2014 parties shall appear before the reference court on 14.01.2019. The reference court shall dispose of the case within a period of two months from that date. The registry shall send back the lower court records forthwith. The court fee paid in L.A.A.No.788 of 2014 shall be refunded. No costs in the appeals. (sd/-) **V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE** (sd/-) **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr/18/12/2018 True Copy PS to Judge