KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. OMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is there any bar for the civil court to entertain a suit for compensation by the claimants for lands lost in excess of that acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ['the Act' for short] ? The issue may crop up under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 also and hence this detailed consideration.

(2.) Lands belonging to the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 were acquired by the first defendant State on the requisitioning of the second defendant Kerala State Housing Board ['the Board' for short] . Award No.5 dated 28.9.1986 and Award No.1 dated 18.6.1992 were passed in respect of 5.06 Ares and 35.06 Ares totalling to 40.12 Ares which gave rise to L.A.R.Nos.478/87, 205/86 and 206/86. L.A.R.Nos.478/87 and 205/86 were for enhancement of compensation under Sec. 18 of the Act whereas LAR.No.206/86 was under Sec. 31(2) of the Act for apportionment of compensation. The judgment in L.A.R.No.205/86 was the subject matter of L.A.A.No.565/1994 by the State and L.A.A.No.580/1994 by the claimants where under the value of lands was enhanced. L.A.R.No.206/86 was disposed of recording a compromise in respect of 35.06 Ares however granting liberty to the parties to institute a suit for compensation in respect of the lands not covered by the reference. It is how the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs claiming compensation on behalf of defendants 3 and 4 also against defendants 1 and 2 for the lands taken possession of in excess by 80 Ares.

(3.) The court below has decreed the suit for realisation of money awarding compensation for the 2.80 Ares of land taken possession of in excess to the tune of Rs. 3,53,220.00 with interest thereon. The Board has come up in appeal contending inter alia that the suit itself is barred in as much as the claimants have to work out their remedy within the four corners of the Act. The claimants not having succeeded in the reference under Sec. 18 of the Act are precluded from instituting a suit invoking Sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Board pointed out that an Advocate Commissioner was not deputed in the suit to prove the extent of encroachment and that the report and plan in the land acquisition references are of no avail. The Board lastly contended that the court below has erred in granting solatium and interest as if it is a land acquisition reference in computing compensation for the alleged loss.