AUGUSTHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are filed by the common claimant in L.A.R. Nos. 156, 257 and 158 of 2009 before the Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur. Certain lands belonging the appellant were acquired as per a notification dated 29.5.1998 issued under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant did not seek any reference under S. 18 of the Act and he accepted the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer without any protest. Subsequently, another person, whose land was acquired under the very same notification, got enhancement of land value in L.R.A. No. 121/2001. Thereafter, the appellant filed applications under S. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking similar enhancement as in L.A.R. No. 121/2001. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the same on the ground that the land in L.A.R. No. 121/2001 is not comparable to the lands acquired from the appellant. The appellant sought reference under S. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, consequent to which the land acquisition references in which the common judgment under appeal in these appeals were passed, came to be referred to the Sub Judge. The Sub Judge, after considering the contentions of the appellant and after referring to the Supreme Court decisions and the decisions of this Court on the subject, came to the conclusion that comparability of the land, award in respect of which land is relied upon, and the land in respect of which the application under S. 28A is filed, is a relevant factor in deciding the application under S. 28A of the Act and merely because the land is acquired under the very same notification, unless comparability is also proved, the land value cannot be enhanced. The Sub Court, after considering the evidence adduced before him, came to the conclusion that the properties are not comparable and therefore the appellant is not entitled to enhancement in land value and rejected the three LARs by a common judgment. It is challenging the said common judgment, the appellant has filed these appeals. The primary contention of the appellant is based on a Single Bench decision and a Division Bench decision of this Court. In Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar, 2004 3 KerLT 261 , a learned Single Judge held that for claiming enhancement of land value under S. 28A, the only relevant factor is whether the two lands have been acquired under the very same notification. Subsequently, after considering the said decision of the Single Bench, a Division Bench of this Court in Sushama v. District Collector, 2010 3 KerLT 605 , held that an application for redetermination of compensation for paddy land under S. 28A cannot be dismissed for the mere reason that the award relied on in support of the application was in respect of a garden land. The contention of the appellant in these cases is that the Sub Court has rejected the claim of the appellant merely for the reason that the lands acquired from the appellant are wet lands, whereas the land involved in L.A.R. No. 121/2001 is dry land. According to appellant, this is contrary to the above decisions of this Court.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that no decision lays down a law that comparability is not a relevant factor for deciding a claim under S. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has, in the decisions in Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of V.P. and another, 1995 2 SCC 689 and Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, 1996 1 KerLT 93 laid down the law that comparability of the two lands is a relevant factor for deciding the claim under S. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, The learned Government Pleader would further submit that although in Raghava Poduval's case , at first blush, the learned Single Judge seems to have taken the view that for maintaining a claim under S. 28A, all what is necessary is that the two lands are covered by the very same notification under S. 4(1), that has been explained by the Division Bench in Sushama's case by stating that Raghava Poduval's case does not lay down such a law for general application, but the same has to be read in the light of the facts of that case. The submission made is that in Sushama's case also, relying on the Supreme Court decisions referred to above, the Division Bench held that comparability is a relevant factor to decide the issue and explained that Raghava Poduval's case had not laid down any different law. All what the Division Bench held is that merely because the award relied on in support of the application under S. 28A is in respect of a garden land, the application for redetermination of compensation for paddy land cannot be dismissed. The contention is that the learned Single Judge had considered all the decisions on the subject including the Supreme Court decision referred to above, the Division Bench decision in Sushama's case and also the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Raghava Poduval's case before coming to the conclusion that the land covered by L.A.R. No. 121/2001 is not comparable to the land acquired from the appellant. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions of the appellant, is the contention.

(3.) We have considered the rival contentions in detail.