Union of India and Others v. Sekkummada Attakoya (S/o Kakkarchikkada Haji Syed Muhammed Koya)

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945** **AS NO. 315 OF 2001** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT. 24.11.2000 IN OS 34/1997 OF DISTRICT COURT,** ## **LAKSHADWEEP** ## **-----** ## **APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:** 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2 THE ADMINISTRATOR, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI 3 THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, AGED 1 YEARS U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI BY ADVS. SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP ## **RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:** SEKKUMMADA ATTAKOYA, S/O KAKKARCHIKKADA HAJI SYED MUHAMMED KOYA, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - PANTHALAM KAMAL ABDUL NAZAR, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, ANDROTH. BY ADV T.K. SAIDALIKUTTY, M.I.JOHNSON, T.K.MOIDEENKUTTY THIS APPEAL SUIT HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 27.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No.315 of 2001** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** The suit for recovery of possession with an alternate prayer for damages, was decreed for damages. The defendants are in appeal. 2. The property which is the subject matter of the suit is situated in Andrott island in Lakshadweep. The plaintiff claims title over the property as per Ext.A2 Partition Deed of the year 1982. During the period 19831986, the plaintiff was abroad. The property was entrusted with a third party for looking after the same. In the year 1983, in the absence of the plaintiff, the property was illegally taken possession of by the Lakshadweep Administration for construction of a Helipad. Thereupon, the plaintiff approached this Court in O.P. No.3296/1987. As per Ext.B4 judgment the plaintiff was relegated to appropriate proceedings under law. It is thereafter that the present suit is filed. ## **A.S. No.315 of 2001** -: 2 :- 3. The defendants contended that, for the purpose of construction of Helipad, the property was surrendered possession of by the plaintiff's father in his absence. Ext.B5(a) dated 08.03.1983 is the written consent given by the father. The defendant's disputed the claim of title. It was contended that the property is only a pandaram land in respect of which the proprietary title vests with the Government. The right held by the plaintiff is only in the nature of a lease. The claim for compensation for land value and improvements and for damages was challenged. 4. The trial Court held that, possession was taken without following due process of law, and granted a decree for compensation towards land value and also for the improvements in the property. 5. Heard learned counsel Sri.Sajith Kumar V. representing the appellants-defendants and Sri.T.K. Saidalikutty on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. **A.S. No.315 of 2001** -: 3 :- 6. The following points arise for determination:- _(i) Is the plaintiff entitled for compensation towards the value of the land?_ _(ii) Is the compensation awarded to the plaintiff under the head value of improvements justified on the materials?_ 7. Though in the suit there is a prayer for recovery of possession, it appears that the same was not pursued since the land was taken over for the purpose of construction of a Helipad. The plaint claim for compensation is essentially under two heads:-(i) Land value and (ii) Value of improvements. 8. To claim land value, the plaintiff has to establish that he was the title holder of the property. The plaintiff claims title over the property as per Ext.A1 Partition Deed. However, the defendants have contended that the properties are Pandaram lands wherein the Government is the title holder and the occupation by the plaintiff is only in the nature of tenancy. Exts.B1 is the Land Register extract and Ext.B2 is the notice ## **A.S. No.315 of 2001** -: 4 :- under Section 7(2) of The Laccadive, Minicoy And Amindivi Islands Survey And Boundaries Regulation, 1959. The said documents indicate that the property in question is a Pandaram Land and that the plaintiff is only a “COWLEDAR”. The Laccadive, Minicoy And Amindivi Islands Survey And Boundaries Regulation, 1959, defines COWLEDAR thus:- _“Cowledar” means a person who has been or is granted a lease of pandaram land on rent for a specified period, one of the conditions of such lease being that he makes improvements thereto.”_ Therefore, the plaintiff holds the property under the Government. He does not hold the proprietary title. Regulation No.83 of the Regulations, 1965 enables the Cowledar to seek for confirment of occupancy right which would vest with him the right of permanency. Noticeably, under Regulation No.83 above, such grant is at the discretion of the Administration. Admittedly, the plaintiff was not conferred with any occupancy right in ## **A.S. No.315 of 2001** -: 5 :- terms of Regulation No. 83 above. Thus, the plaintiff not being the title holder of the property, is not entitled for compensation towards the value of the land. However, since the plaintiff was in enjoyment and making improvements under due authority, he would be entitled for the value of improvements. A similar view was adopted by this Court in _**E.P. Attakoya Thangal vs. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep and others W.P.(C) No.28018/2006** ._ Therein this Court held that compensation for acquisition of land can be claimed only if occupancy rights were conferred to the cowledar and further that, such person would however be entitled for the value of the improvements effected in the property. Therefore, the finding of the Court that the plaintiff is entitled for compensation towards the value of the land, is not correct. The decree granted under the said head is liable to be interfered with. 9. Incidentally, the question would arise whether the property was taken possession of by following the ## **A.S. No.315 of 2001** -: 6 :- due process of law. It is not in dispute that proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as such were not strictly followed. But the lands were taken possession of by voluntary surrender from the occupants. It must be in the light of such procedure adopted that, though cowledars like the plaintiffs are not entitled for the land value as such, still compensation was awarded to them even under the said head. Anyhow, the nature of right over the lands being only an arrangement of lease, is determinable by surrender. Admittedly the plaintiff was abroad during the relevant time. Though the plaintiff claims that the property was entrusted to a third party for management, there is no evidence in the said regard. The father was very much available. As is evidenced by Ext.B5(a) dated 08.03.1983, the father who was in management has voluntarily surrendered the property. Therefore, it could not be said that there is any illegality in the manner of taking over of the possession. Be that as it may, the Administration has **A.S. No.315 of 2001** -: 7 :- awarded land value to the tune of ` 62,500/- having due consideration to various facts. The plaintiff shall be entitled for the said amount. 10. Now coming to the claim for compensation under the head value of improvements, according to the plaintiff, there were 50 coconut trees in the property out of which 49 trees were cut and removed. He claimed that each tree bore 150 nuts and thus claimed the value of trees at ` 4,000/-. Even though the defendants disputed the claim of the plaintiff, no evidence is produced from their side. Necessarily, a detailed report and mahazar must have been prepared at the time of taking over the property by the authority. Such records would have been the best evidence to show the income from the party. However, such records have not been brought to light. In such background, the trial court accepted the plaintiff's version and fixed the value of improvements at ` 2 lakhs. The trial Court was justified in doing so. The said finding of the trial court is only **A.S. No.315 of 2001** -: 8 :- to be accepted. 11. The points for determination are answered as above. 12. In the light of the afore discussions, the decree and judgment of the trial Court, to the extent it granted land value in addition to that granted by the Administration under Ext.B3, is liable to be set aside. The plaintiff could be granted a decree for recovery of ` 62,500/- awarded under Ext.B3 and also the value of improvements fixed at ` 2 lakhs. 13. The trial court has granted interest at the rate of 15% from the date of taking over of possession (31.08.1983) till date of decree, and thereafter at the rate of 12%. Evidently the interest granted subsequent to the decree is not in conformity with Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So also, the rate of interest granted till date of decree is arbitrary and excessive. Grant of interest at the rate of 12% till date of decree and thereafter at 6% is just and **A.S. No.315 of 2001** -: 9 :- reasonable. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of the trial Court are set aside and a decree is passed as hereunder:- The plaintiff is entitled to realise an amount of ` 2,62,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.08.1983 till date of decree (27.06.2023) and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realisation, from the defendants. The plaintiff shall also be entitled for proportionate costs throughout. Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN JUDGE** kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge