STATE OF KERALA Vs. KOCHEEPPAN GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is before us by reason of the reference to a larger Bench by a Full Bench of this Court. The correctness of the earlier decision of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Travancore - Cochin v. Mathai, 1957 KLJ 893 was doubted and that was the occasion for such reference.

(2.) The matter had originally come up before a Division Bench which by an order dated 29-10-1979 referred the case to the Full Bench. The reference order reads thus:

(3.) The facts of the case, to the extent necessary for the purpose of the appeal, may now be stated. 95.44 Ares of land were acquired under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act for an electrical Substation at Pathanamthitta. The notification under S.3(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 19-10-1971. The declaration under S.6 was on 10-7-1973. Advance possession had been taken on 22-3-1973. Notice under S.9(3) of the Act was served on the land owner on 4-6-1974. The case was posted for enquiry to 27-6 1974. On that day the claimant sought an adjournment and accordingly the enquiry was adjourned to 1-7-1974. He appeared on that day, filed a claim statement and produced certain title deeds In the claim statement he mentioned that he had title to the land acquired, that the documents showing the title had been produced and that he may be paid compensation. The amount of compensation was not specified in that statement. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31-7-1974. The claimant moved an application for reference under S.20 of the Act on 16-8-1974. On 19-11-1974 the Land Acquisition Officer made reference by a letter in which he specifically pointed out that in the claim statement no specific claim as to the amount of compensation was made and he also pointed out that for this reason the claimant was not entitled to any enhancement. When, pursuant to the notice from the reference court, the claimant appeared and filed his statement in court on 30-5-1975 he did not explain the reason why he omitted to make a claim before the Land Acquisition Officer in response to the notice under S.9(3) of the Act. Even in the evidence no attempt was made by the claimant to indicate the reason as to why he failed to make a claim as to the specific quantum of compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer. At the hearing before the reference court Government counsel seems to have urged that the claimant was not entitled to any enhancement of compensation in view of his failure to make a claim. S.27(1) of the Kerala Act provides that if the applicant has made a claim to compensation pursuant to the notice given to him under S.9 the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under S.11. Sub-s.(2) of S.27 provides that if the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. The consequence of the provision in S.27 is that the compensation is limited to the amount claimed in the statement made pursuant to notice under S.9 if such a statement had been filed. When the claimant fails to make such claim the reference court cannot award any enhancement. The exception to this is the case where the omission to make a claim is explained and the explanation is acceptable to the Judge.