JANAKI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment in L.A.R.No. 271 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Payyannur. The judgment of the court below was in a reference under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act. An extent of 0.0405 hectares of land situated in R.S.31/14 was acquired for the purpose of Naval Academy. The award was passed on 28-1-1986. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 1,19,000/- per hectare and towards acquired land the compensation was fixed at Rs. 4855.95. There were coconut trees and a house. They were separately valued and Rs. 53,113.15 was fixed as the value of bearing trees and other structural improvements. This property originally belonged to claimant No. 1 Ayamad Haji. He died and the rights of this property devolved on claimant 2 to 4. They contended that they are entitled to the entire compensation amount. They also contended that the 5th claimant, who was in occupation of a building situated in this property was not a Kudikidappukari. The 5th claimant, on the other hand, contended that she was a Kudikidappakari in the property and therefore, the entire compensation amount was due to her. The court below held that the 5th claimant was entitled to get only the land value with the solatium and interest therein and that claimants 2 to 4 were entitled to the value of improvements. This finding is challenged by the 5th claimant.

(2.) The 5th claimant filed O.A.17/83 about 2 years prior to the notification under S.3(1) of the K.L.R. Act for purchase of Kudikidappu right in respect of the acquired property. The Revenue Inspector filed an enquiry report and the house occupied by the 5lh claimant was valued at Rs. 733/-. This was later set aside and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner found that the building occupied by the 5th claimant would have fetched a monthly rent 01 Rs. 3.26. The Land Tribunal found that the house in question was a hut, but in view of the acquisition proceedings the purchase application was dismissed. Against the dismissal of O.A. 17/83, the 5th claimant preferred A. A.9/86 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the dismissal of the O.A. The 5th claimant preferred a revision before this Court and this Court held that as the property had already been acquired by the Government for public purpose the remedy of the petitioner is only to get the compensation amount in the land acquisition proceedings. So as the matter stands, the fact that 5th claimant was a Kudikidappukari in occupation of the building situated in the acquired property is not in dispute. So the further question to be decided is whether the 5th claimant is entitled to get the entire compensation as contended by her or whether she is entitled only to the land value as held by the court below.

(3.) To understand the scope of the dispute in this case it is necessary to look into the various provisions of the K.L.R. Act. Under S.80A of the K.L.R. Act a Kudikidappukaran was allowed to purchase the Kudikidappu occupied by him and the . land adjoining thereto". In the case of Kudikidappu which is situated in a city area the land that could be purchased is 3 cents and 5 cents in any other municipality or ten cents in a Panchayat area or township provided that where the land available for purchase in the land in which the Kudikidappu is situate, or the land in which the kudikidappu is situate, is less than the extent specified above the kudikidappukaran shall be entitled to purchase only the land available for purchase as the case may be. The land in which kudikidappu is situate, in the instant case, is only 10 cents and the entire 10 cents was acquired by the Government.