MURALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was claimant in LAR No. 22 of 1997, a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act challenges Ext. P4 judgment of the reference Court declining to answer the reference on the reason that the reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector is not a valid one. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 05/04/1998 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value for wet lands at the rate of Rs.454/- per Are and Rs.2137/- per Are for dry lands. The petitioner claims that he received the award amount under protest and requested the LA Officer to make a reference to the Court of the question of determination of the correct compensation payable for the acquired property. He submits that the LA Officer accordingly referred the matter and that was how LAR No. 23/97 came to be registered on the files of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cherthala. The petitioner submits that in the first instance the learned Subordinate Judge closed the reference by default of the claimant and this Court under Ext. P2 judgment ordered restoration of the reference. On restoring the reference as ordered, the reference Court has passed the impugned judgment after taking evidence holding that the reference is not a valid one since the application for reference submitted by the petitioner was hopelessly time barred. To decide so, the learned Subordinate Judge relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Pathoottv v. District Collector, 2004 KHC 1132 : 2004 (3) KLT 348 : 2004 (2) KLJ 539 : ILR 2004 (3) Ker. 417 wherein it is held that even if the Land Acquisition Collector refers the matter, the reference Court is duty bound to see whether the statutory conditions laid down in 18 have been complied with and that only if the reference is found to be valid, need the Court exercise jurisdiction positively.

(2.) On considering the writ petition for admission the Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the respondent and I directed him to seek instructions from the Land Acquisition Officer concerned as to which was the application on the basis of which the reference leading to LAR No. 23/97 was made by him. Government Pleader was also directed to make available all files relating to the acquisition of the petitioner's property. I simultaneously directed the Registrar to ensure that the lower Court records reach this Court. On perusal of the LCR it was seen that the petitioner had not filed, formal application for reference under S.18 of the LA Act within the statutory time limit. The file revealed receipt dated 20/04/1982 issued by the petitioner to the LA Officer while receiving the awarded compensation. It was also seen that the receipt incorporates the petitioner's protest to the compensation determined by the LA Officer and a statement that the compensation received is inadequate. Since it was felt that one of the questions to be decided in this case may be whether the receipt dated 20/04/1982 could be construed as an application for reference the counsel for the petitioner was specifically directed to cite all available judicial precedents on the point and accordingly the case was posted to 04/11/2008 for hearing.

(3.) Sri. K. G. Pavithran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader have addressed me extensively. Sri. K. G. Pavithran would refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in R. Prasad and Others v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2007 (NOC) 931 (Del.) and also to the judgment of this Court in Annamma Chacko v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1981 KHC 17 : 1981 KLT 36 : 1980 KLN 677 and submit that Courts are expected to take an extremely liberal view when it comes to construing applications for reference. Extensive properties belonging to the petitioner were acquired by the Government and the compensation paid by the LA Officer is meagre. According to the learned counsel there was every justification for construing the receipt dated 20/04/1982 issued by the petitioner as an application for reference since the protest of the petitioner to the adequacy of the compensation had been clearly raised and the petitioner had also stated that the value determined by the LA Officer was below the market value of the property. When the attention of the counsel was drawn to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Antony v. State of Kerala, 2005 (1) KLT 583 3 the learned counsel would submit that in that case also there was no formal application for reference and that what the Division Bench had done was to construe a letter submitted by the land owner expressing dissatisfaction regarding the market value determined by the LA Officer as request for reference. The petitioner is an illiterate person and therefore there was warrant for bestowing benevolence and indulgence upon him. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel to Ext. P4, another judgment of the very same Sub Court authored by another Sub Judge. Counsel submitted that in that case which pertained to the acquisition of another item of property pursuant to the very same S.4(1) notification substantial enhancement had been awarded by the Court. The situation which will result if the impugned judgment is not interfered with is that there will be inequality between similarly placed persons in the matter of compensation for properties which were treated similar by the LA Officer.