SEBASTIAN M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants are in appeal. Their wet lands situated in Poonithura Village were acquired by the Government at the instance of the Kerala Water Authority for setting up of a sewage treatment plant for that authority. The relevant notification under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was promulgated by the L.A. Officer on 05/09/1978. Pursuant to that notice, after conducting award enquiry, the L.A. Officer passed award on 23/09/1986. Under this award land value was fixed at the rate of Rs.403/- per cent. Interestingly the award which was passed by the LAO was a common award in favour of several land owners without specifying the separate extents taken over from their possession. On the basis that it was not possible to determine the amounts due to each of the land owners what the Land Acquisition Officer did was to deposit an amount of Rs.1,26,112.59 as the total compensation and send up a reference under S.31(2) to the Court. The claimants were issued with award notice under S.12(2) on 23/11/1987. On realising that it is at the rate of Rs.403/- per cent that the Land Acquisition Officer had determined the compensation, the awardees sought for references under S.18. Considering the request of the awardees, the Land Acquisition Officer sent a reference under S.18 to the Land Acquisition Court. The reference under S.18 was registered by the L.A. Court as LAR No. 127 of 1990 while the reference under S.31(2) was registered as LAR. No. 60 of 1990. It is pertinent to note in this context that there was considerable delay not only in the matter of passing of the award, but also in the matter of sending the references under S.31(2) and S.18. The references were enquired into by the Court below. The enquiry, we gather from the proceedings paper maintained by the Court continued for a fairly long period of about 9 years. The claimants entered appearance on 23/10/1990 and the references were closed by the learned Sub Judge on 04/12/1999 by passing the following order:

(2.) In these appeals, various grounds have been raised assailing the decision of the Court below. It is urged that the Court below was not justified in discarding Ext. A1. It is urged that though the notification under S.3(1) was published on 05/09/1978, the crucial date while determining market value of the land in these cases was 23/02/2003, when only a proper award was passed by the L.A. Officer. Sri. P. Suresh, learned counsel for the appellant addressed extensively on the various grounds raised in the memoranda of appeals. All the submissions of Mr. Suresh were resisted by Mr. M. Dinesh, standing counsel for Water Authority and Smt. Latha T. Thankappan, Senior Govt. Pleader for the Government. Sri. Suresh drew our attention to the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 04/12/1999 which we have quoted herein before. According to him, the claimants were all willing to surrender their lands if a proper award had been passed by the L.A. Officer within a reasonable period of 05/09/1978, the date of S.3(1) notification. In this particular case, there was inordinate delay even in the matter of passing the original award. Original award passed on 23/09/1986 was not at all an improper award. This was why the appellants were hesitant to part with possession of their properties. Proper award was passed only on 23/02/2003. The appellants are not to blame for the delay which had been caused in the matter. According to Mr. Suresh, though it is true that the appellants were not dispossessed of their properties till 15/04/1993, since Democlis' sword of land acquisition was hanging over them and their properties the appellants were obliged to retain possession of their properties even against their wishes, as a result of which the appellants had to spent considerably towards developing the properties. Had it not been for the acquisition proceedings which were hanging fire for several years without reaching proper culmination the appellants would have been able to utilise their properties very profitably. Had a proper compensation been awarded in 1978 after completing the proceedings on time it would have been possible for the appellants to invest the compensation amount in real estate or business in which case they would have been able to make considerable gains. Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Suresh on the judgment of Chandrasekhara Menon, J. in George v. Special Tahsildar (LA), GCDA, 1984 KHC 253 : 1984 KLT 471 : 1984 KLJ 229 and also on the judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court in Mahalakshmi Ammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, AIR 1993 Mad. 366 . Even stronger reliance was placed by Mr. Suresh on the judgment of a learned single Judge of Karnataka High Court in Patel Byrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1989 Karnataka 283. Mr. Suresh pointed out that in the Karnataka case, the Court after noticing the inordinate delay which was occasioned in the matter of passage of award, had directed the market value to be determined as on the date when the award is communicated to the awardees. Mr. Suresh concluded his submissions by stating that at any rate, in these cases, the market value of the lands should be ordered to be fixed as on 02/09/1991 when only the reference under S.18 was sent to the Court considering reference applications which were submitted four years earlier.

(3.) All the submissions of Mr. Suresh were countered by Sri. M. Dinesh, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority and Smt. Latha T. Thankappan, Senior Govt. Pleader. Smt. Latha T. Thankappan in particular would submit that the Land Acquisition Officer is not to blame for passing the award without specifying the extent acquired from each of the awardees. The claimants did not co - operate with the Land Acquisition Officer by producing relevant documents. If the claimants had produced the relevant documents in the award enquiry, the officer could have perused those documents and passed award on the basis of those documents. Before the Reference Court also the claimants contributed to the delay more than the Government. She highlighted that at any rate, the claimants have not sustained any loss on account of the delay in completing the land acquisition proceedings as all along they were possessing and enjoying the properties under acquisition. They were actually dispossessed only on 15/04/1993. The Reference Court has actually conferred unmerited gains for the claimants by awarding to them statutory interest under S.28 with effect from 23/09/1986, the day on which they were dispossessed as per the records of the awarding officer. According to Smt. Latha T. Thankappan and Sri. Dinesh, the cases covered by 1984 KHC 253 : 1984 KLT 471 : 1984 KLJ 229 and the Madras Division Bench decision and the Karnataka decision cannot have any application in these cases where the claimants were dispossessed only in 1993.