PURUSHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question raised for determination in this appeal is the question as to whether the claimant applicant in a reference under S.28A(3) is entitled to have more land value than what was awarded to the claimant in the Court judgment that was relied on by the applicant in his application under S.28A. The appellant filed an application under S.28A of the Land Acquisition Act relying on the judgment in L.A.R.30/94. Under that judgment, the claimant in that case was awarded land value @ Rs. 12,000/- per Are. The prayer of the appellant applicant in his application under S.28A was that he also be awarded land value at the rate of 12,000/- per Are as was awarded to the claimant in L.A.R 30/94. But before the claim under 28A was enquired into by the Land Acquisition Officer, the local reference Court awarded a higher rate of land value to another party, whose land was also acquired under the very same S.4(1) notification i.e. the claimant in L.A.R.378/ 89. Since the claimant in L.A.R. 378/89 adduced better evidence than the claimant in L.A.R.30/94, the reference Court awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 12,597/- to him.

(2.) When the application filed by the present appellant under S.28A came up for consideration before the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant wanted him also to be awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 12,597/- that is, the rate awarded by the Court in the subsequent case L.A.R.378/89. The Land Acquisition Officer took in view that the prayer in the application under S.28A was only that the appellant be awarded compensation on the basis of L.A.R.30/94 and he has no jurisdiction to award a party more that what the party has claimed in the applications and redetermined the compensation only on the basis of L.A.R.30/94.

(3.) Since the appellant was dissatisfied by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, he applied for a reference under S.28A(3). The application was granted and the case came before the Land Acquisition Reference Court. Before the Court, the parties were allowed to adduce evidence. Evidence on the side of the appellant consisted mainly of Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.378/89 and the appellant's own oral testimony as AW. 1. On the side of the Government the counter evidence consisted of Exts.R1 to R4 which were documents pertaining to the acquisition. The learned Judge noticed that Exts.A1 case also pertains to acquisition of property under which the appellant's property was acquired. However, endorsing the view of the Land Acquisition Officer that the party is not entitled to have more that what he had claimed, the Court confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and refused to rely on Ext.A1.