STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAMCHANDRAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals filed by the State of Kerala arise from the awards passed by the reference court in respect of the lands acquired by the Southern Railway. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/land owners have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these appeals. They contend that as the acquisition was for the Southern Railway, the State of Kerala cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by the impugned award. It is contended that though Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not, in express terms, stipulate that an appeal will lie only at the instance of a person aggrieved, the State of Kerala which acquired the lands for and on behalf of the Southern Railway, cannot be said to be a person aggrieved for the reason that the compensation including all expenses for the acquisition is paid by the Southern Railway.

(2.) Smt. Asha Elizabeth Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the respondents who led the arguments, submitted that neither the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer nor the requisitioning authority can seek a reference of the dispute regarding the land value to the civil court, that the requisitioning authority is entitled to be made a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer/reference court and therefore, as an appeal at the instance of the requisitioning authority which in the instant case is the Southern Railway, is maintainable, there is no reason to hold that the State of Kerala is a person aggrieved. Learned counsel also invited our attention to the decisions of the Apex Court and this court in support of the said contention. Relying on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in In re Jerbai Framji Metha(AIR (37) 1950 Bom.243) which in turn was followed by the Goa Bench in Jose Gonasalo Pereira Vs. Gonsalo Pereira (AIR 1978 Goa, Daman & Diu 44) it was contended that under the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the only person who is entitled to appear before the reference court is the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer and that the Government do not have the locus standi to canvass the correctness of the award passed by the reference court in appeal.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Ranjith Thampan, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri C.R. Syam Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Southern Railway submitted with reference to R.9(3) of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1995 and the stipulations in the proforma of the agreement entered into between the State on the one hand and the Southern Railway on the other, that the State of Kerala is bound to transfer the acquired lands which vests in it by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec. 16 of the Act, to the requisitioning authority which in the instant case is the Southern Railway, only on the Southern Railway depositing the entire amount awarded as compensation by the reference court and that in a given case if the Southern Railway fails to deposit the enhanced compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, though it had deposited in advance the amount estimated as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer prior to the passing of the award, the State of Kerala will be liable to pay out of its own funds the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court and therefore, it cannot be said that it is not aggrieved by the award passed by the reference court. Learned counsel also invited our attention to the decision of this court in Corporation of Cochin Vs. Michael Luiz (1995 (2) KLT 320) which was followed by another learned single Judge of this court in O.P.(C)No. 89 of 2013. Learned counsel contended that this court has in the aforesaid decisions held that notwithstanding the fact that the acquisition is made on behalf of a company or a local body, the obligation to pay compensation for the acquired lands is on the State and therefore, the assets of the requisitioning authority cannot be attached by the execution court. Learned counsel contended that as the State of Kerala with whom the acquired lands are vested for the purpose of being transferred to the requisitioning authority is the judgment debtor in all these cases, it cannot be said that an appeal at the instance of the State of Kerala is not maintainable.