The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging an award of compensation in a land acquisition case involving significant delay. The Court held that when delay is attributable to the authority, compensation should be based on the market value as on the date of the award.
The appeal was dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932
LA.App..No. 293 of 2004() -----------------------------------LAR.20/2000 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM ....................
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT. -----------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA.
BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.K. BABU.
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS.
------------------------------------------
1. GEORGE MANAYIL, VADUTHALA.
2. JAMES MANAYIL, VADUTHALA.
3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, KOCHI.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.LESLIE STEPHEN, SMT.LILLY LESLIE.
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
L.A.A. NO: 293 OF 2004 C
----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd July, 2010. JUDGMENT
SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
This is an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment and decree dated 15/12/2001 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam in L.A.R.20/2000. The land in question was acquired for the Corporation of Kochi for opening a lane extending from the railway line up to the backwaters at Vaduthala. Section 3(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 16/5/1978 and the land was taken possession of on 20/12/1979. However, the award in the case was passed only on 10/2/1999 after about 20 years. Lands belonging to many others were also acquired as per the notification, which was the subject matter of references before the Sub Court, Ernakulam in LAR Nos:22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 32/2000. It is seen that the Reference Court considered this case along with all the other cases mentioned above and disposed of the cases together, as per a common judgment. However an appeal appears to have been filed only in the present case.
LAA 293/2004
2
and other connected cases, the trial was conducted. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of A.W.1, Exts.A1 and A2 documents on the side of the claimants, B1 and B2 on the side of the respondents and Ext.C1 commission report. It is worth noticing that there is no oral evidence on the side of the respondents and no documentary evidence except the notice of award and the mahazars in the various cases. After considering the claim petitions in the light of the evidence on record, the Reference Court found that the delay that was occasioned in passing the award in the present and the connected cases was not attributable to any act on the part of the claimants. Since they were not to be blamed for the delay, it has been held that they were entitled to get compensation for their properties on the basis of the market value as on the date of the award.
3
LAA 293/2004
LAA 293/2004
4
learned Govt. Pleader, it was the market value as on the date of the Section 3(1) notification that should have been taken into account. He places reliance on the decision of the apex Court in Chimanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona (AIR 1988 SC 1652}. In the said decision, it has been held at page 1656 as follows:-
“The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Ss.6 and 9 are irrelevant)”
In view of the above binding precedent, it is contended that the reference court seriously went wrong in taking the date of award as the crucial date for determining the market value. Therefore, he has prayed for setting aside the award.
5
LAA 293/2004
owners. Finally, the award was passed only after the land owners approached this Court by filing O.P.3602/1990. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10/2/1999 directing that the award be passed. Even thereafter, the matter was delayed and finally an award was passed only on 10/2/1999. The delay was not due to any fault on the part of the claimants/land owners. The court below has noticed that as per the notes to the award, the delay was caused due to the fact that the requisitioning authority had failed to provide the necessary funds. Therefore, it is contended by the counsel that there is absolutely no justification for penalising land owners for the delay on the part of the authorities. According to the counsel, in view of the inordinate delay in passing the award in the present case, the Reference Court was justified in awarding market value as on the date of the award. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal may be dismissed with costs.
LAA 293/2004
6
passing of the award had vitiated the proceedings. In the said case, the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was published on 7/8/1973 and the declaration under Section 6 was made on 2/7/1974. However, the award was passed only on 30/11/1979. Holding that the delay in the case was unreasonable, this Court quashed the notification itself. In George v. Special Tahsildar (L.A), G.C.D.A.{1984 KLT 471} where there was inordinate delay in passing the award a Single Bench of this Court has held that the land acquisition proceedings can be continued provided the land owners were paid compensation for the land so acquired at the prevailing market price as on the date of the award. In an unreported decision dated 12/11/1987 in O.P.8266/1984 this Court has held relying on the decision in George v. Special Tahsildar {1984 KLT 471} that the land value would have to be ascertained on the basis of the market value prevailing as on the date of the award. A similar view has been taken by a Single Bench of the Karnataka High Court also in Patel Byrappa v. State of Karnataka and others {AIR 1989 Karnataka 283} . In the said case, compensation was directed to be determined on the basis of the price of land prevailing as on the date on which the award was communicated to the party.
7
LAA 293/2004
8
LAA 293/2004
and the purpose of the acquisition was also accomplished by converting the land acquired into a lane for the use of the public. Therefore, the benefit of the acquisition had accrued to the public also in the present case. In the above circumstances there is absolutely no justification for the contention of the learned Govt. Pleader that the date of Section 3(1) notification should have been adopted for determining the compensation payable in the present case. The approach of the Reference Court in the above circumstances is perfectly justified and is only in accordance with the principles of equity. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed in this case.
This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE Judge
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
jj
LAA 293/2004 9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the market value of the land should be determined as on the date of the notification or the date of the award in cases of inordinate delay attributable to the authority.
Whether the Reference Court justified in awarding compensation based on the market value as on the date of the award despite prior precedent suggesting the date of notification.
Whether the appeal challenging the compensation amount should be allowed or dismissed given the reasons for delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chimanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, PoonaReferred¶33
Chimanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona (AIR 1988 SC 1652) · Who else cites this
Poker Haji v. Union of IndiaReferred¶41
Poker Haji v. Union of India {ILR 1985(2) Kerala 122} · Who else cites this
George v. Special Tahsildar (L.A), G.C.D.A.Referred¶43
George v. Special Tahsildar (L.A), G.C.D.A.{1984 KLT 471}
Patel Byrappa v. State of Karnataka and othersReferred¶43
Patel Byrappa v. State of Karnataka and others {AIR 1989 Karnataka 283} · Who else cites this
Chandra Bansi Singh and others v. State of Bihar and othersReferred¶46
Chandra Bansi Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others {(1984) 4 SCC 316} · Who else cites this
Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition OfficerReferred¶46
Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer {(2002)1 SCC 142} · Who else cites this
State of Kerala
George Manayil
James Manayil
The Secretary, Corporation of Kochi, Kochi
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
