SANTHAKUMARI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of 0.85 acres of land in Sy.No.4 74/1-2 (Re-survey No.5/12) involved in this case was acquired for the purpose of Kallada Irrigation Project and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.4,899.82. It is not disputed that the property was taken from the possession of the appellant. It is also not disputed that notices under S.12(2) and also S.9 were issued to the appellant. No other person also made any claim for the amount of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer did not disburse the compensation amount to the appellant for the reason that according to the award the property acquired is in Sy.No.474/1-2 whereas the property of the appellant is in Sy.No.477/C. In the circumstances, he deposited the amount in court and the matter was referred to the Sub Court for decision as to the appellant's entitlement to the compensation.

(2.) Ext.A1 is a document of title. That would show that the property assigned in favour of the claimants is in Sy.No.477/C. Similarly, Exts.A2 to A4 tax receipts and certificate issued by Village Officer would show that the property involved in those documents is in Sy.No.477/C. The 1st appellant also gave evidence that the property acquired belonged to her and her minor children and they got title under sale deed No.3193/80. She also proved the tax receipts referred to above and the certificate issued by the Village Officer. According to her, the property acquired is in Sy. No. 477/C. However, the reference court rejected the claim mainly on the ground that under S.12 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not open to the appellants to raise such a contention. S.12 of the Land Acquisition Act lays down that the award shall be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested of the true area and value of the land and apportionment of compensation among persons interested. S.13-A of the Land Acquisition Act invests the Collector with powers to correct clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes etc. at any time but not later than six months from the date of the award, or where he has been required under S.18 to make a reference to the court before the making of such reference.

(3.) The question to be considered is whether in view of the provisions contained in S.12, the appellants are precluded from adducing evidence to show that the survey number shown in the award is wrong and that it is comprised in different survey number. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant filed an application before the Collector to correct the error committed in the award in regard to the survey number, but no orders were passed on that application. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondent to controvert the evidence of the appellant that the property acquired and taken possession is comprised in a different survey number and that the said property belonged to her and was in her possession. The State has no case that the property acquired belonged to some other person. No other person has also claimed compensation in the instant case. There is not even any faint suggestion that any other person is the owner of the acquired property. I do not think that in a situation like this, the reference court is precluded from permitting the parties to adduce evidence on the question whether there is a mistake in the survey number shown in the award and that really the acquired property belonged to the appellant. No notice was served by the Land Acquisition Officer to any other person than the appellant. I do not find anything in S.12 or 13-A which precludes the reference court from considering the question whether any mistake is committed by the Land Acquisition Officer in showing the Survey Number of property. If ft is held otherwise, great hardship and injustice will be caused to the real owner on account of the mistake committed by the officers concerned with land acquisition proceedings. In the instant case, the appellant brought the mistake in survey number by filing a petition to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer, but it is unfortunate that the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken any serious effort to probe into the matter.