GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is aggrieved of the deduction of 10 per cent of the compensation deposited by the requisitioning authority in the Land Acquisition court towards the income-tax, which according to the Petitioner is not permissible to be deducted, the land in question being an agricultural land and is clearly excluded from the provisions of deduction of tax under Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act.

(2.) The sequence of the events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the property of the Petitioner was acquired in connection with the establishment of sub-station for the Power Grid Corporation of India, who is the third Respondent herein. The property is situated in Pallikkara village in Ernakulam District. On acquisition of the property pursuant to the notification issued under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation was awarded by the Lassessing officer. Being aggrieved of the inadequacy of the quantum, it was caused to be referred under Section 18, pursuant to which the matter was considered by the reference court and the compensation was enhanced. The entire compensation so enhanced by the reference court was deposited by the third Respondent along with the compensation payable in other cases as well (which were considered and dealt with by the reference Court, by passing a common verdict in 33 cases). However, while submitting Ext. P1 letter along with the statement as to the particulars of the compensation payable, the third, Respondent also made a stipulation to deduct the income-tax payable as per the statute, which according to the Petitioner is not correct or sustainable and is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, pursuant to. the deposit of the compensation amount, the Petitioner preferred a cheque application for the entire amount, which however was not accepted by the execution Court, observing that it was not proper. This made the Petitioner to submit a subsequent cheque application limiting the same to 90 per cent of the compensation and got it disbursed. Subsequently, the Petitioner preferred Ext. P2 cheque application for the remaining 10 per cent, which is the subject-matter of dispute and the Petitioner has come up with a prayer to direct the Sub court to consider and pass orders on Ext. P2, also seeking to declare that the compensation amount deposited in LAR No. 260 of 2007 as per Ext. P1 is not liable to be withheld towards the payment of income-tax.