LAWS(KER)-2005-2-95

STATE OF KERALA V Vs. N NARAYANAN NAIR

Decided On February 21, 2005
STATE OF KERALA V Appellant
V/S
N NARAYANAN NAIR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State assailing the award of the Land Acquisition Court.

(2.) The respondent/claimant did not initially seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). Therefore, his case was not referred to the Civil Court. Later, he came to know that the owner of the adjoining land which was acquired under the same notification had sought for reference under Section 18. His case was referred as L.A.R.No. 40/86. The Court later awarded enhanced land value and enhanced value for the improvements. Thereupon, the respondent/claimant moved the collector filing an application under Section 28A(I) of the Act. There was no action on the part of the collector. The respondent, therefore, moved this Court and obtained a direction for consideration of his application under Section 28A(I) of the Act. The Collector, thereupon, considered the application and passed an award redetermining the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 17,927/- to the respondent. Dissatisfied with the award of redetermination, the respondent sought for a reference under Section 28A(3). That reference is answered in the impugned judgment -- Annexure III, granting compensation on the counts of improvements as well as shifting charges. According to the Court below, the respondent/claimant was entitled for an amount of Rs. 40,679/-towards the value of coffee, a further amount of Rs. 4,141/- towards the value of non-bearing trees, Rs. 4,780/- towards the value of 259 jack trees and Rs. 32,850/- towards the value of the land, apart from shifting charges of Rs. 2,000/- in order to shift the existing building.

(3.) It is submitted by the Government Pleader that the Court below had acted as if it was a reference under Section 18 of the Act enhancing the value on all the counts rather than re-determining the land value in terms of the award of the Court below pointed out by the claimant/respondent. This is not permissible. The improvements available in the adjoining land and that available in the land of the respondent may not always be similar. It is further pointed out that even if similar crops are available in the land in question, the yield may not be the same. The age of the plants or trees may not be the same. Such redetermination is not possible under Section 28A based on an award in respect of the adjoining property acquired based on the very same notification. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decision of this Court in Kamalakshi Amma v. Special Tahsildar, 2004 (2) KLT 716.