BAINDS TOWERS P LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No. 1. Notice to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass and in the light of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner about finding entered by the court below on the reference under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short 'the Act'). There were two references, under Sections 18(1) and 31(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner tells me that the reference under Section 31(2) has been answered in favour of petitioner/additional claimant and he has received compensation awarded. When the matter was pending in the reference court (L.A.R. No. 256/07 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram). Petitioner wanted an additional claim statement to be filed in the said case and did so, along with I.A. No. 7904/2009 to receive the additional claim statement Learned Sub Judge, vide Ext. P3, order rejected I.A. No. 7904/2009, holding that there is no provision to receive any such additional claim statement Ext. P3 order is under challenge.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner contended that Ext. P3, order is not sustainable and that the additional claim statement filed along with I.A. No. 7904/2009 must be treated as a subsequent pleading which could be entertained by the court invoking Rule 9 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'The Code'). I have heard learned Government Pleader also in this regard.

(3.) Learned Sub Judge was in error in holding that there is no provision to receive an additional claim statement. Section 25 of the Act states that the amount of compensation awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the court under Section 11 . Though it is not as if the court therefore has unfettered power to pass award for any amount by way of compensation, it is clear from Section 25 that it is open to the court to award compensation more than what has been awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. The procedure before reference court is governed by the provisions of the Code so far as it is not inconsistent with any other provisions of the Act, as Section 53 of the Act states. In the matter of reception of additional claim statement, there is no provision in the Act which is inconsistent with the provisions of order VIII of the Code.