T P KAMALAKSHMI AMMA Vs. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment of the reference Court in a reference under S.26A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer on a consideration of the application under S.28A filed by the appellant - claimant redetermined the compensation payable to her on the basis of the judgments relied on in the application, certified copies of which had been produced. In fact, land value for the appellant's acquired property was re-determined in terms of the Court - award on the basis of which redetermination was sought for. The Land Acquisition Officer however did not award any additional value by way of improvements nor did the Land Acquisition Officer award statutory benefits on the redetermined compensation, taking the view that applicants in proceedings under S.28A are not entitled for statutory benefits. Since the appellant was dissatisfied with the order of the Land Acquisition Officer, at her instance the reference under S.28A(3) was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the reference Court and the judgment impugned in this appeal is passed in that case.

(2.) BEFORE the reference Court the appellant adduced evidence examining three witnesses and producing Exts.A1 to A3. On the side of the respondent, Exts.B1 to B5 were produced. Ext.C1 Commissioner's Report was also obtained at the instance of the appellant. Vide the impugned judgment the reference Court answered the reference against the appellant. The Court found on the authority of decisions that the appellant is not entitled for interest at the statutory rates of 9% and 15% on the excess amount paid to her under the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings under S.28A. The Court also found that the appellant is not entitled for redetermination of compensation in respect of improvements and structures.

(3.) MR . Eldho submitted that there was no justification at all for the appellant not being paid interest on the redetermined amount especially in view of the decision of this Court in Koruthukochukutty v. State of Kerala, 2000 (1) KLT 26, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi, AIR 1997 SC 1779. Counsel further submitted that there was good evidence before the reference Court to hold that what had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer initially by way of value of improvements was very low and on the basis of the documents including the Commissioner's Report it should have been held that the appellant is entitled for the enhanced value recommended by the Commissioner as value of improvements. According to counsel, a reference under S.28A(3) is to be dealt with and decided by the reference Court in the same manner as references under S.18 since S.28A(3) specifically provides that the provisions of S.18 to 28 shall apply to references under S.28A(3) also.