STATE Vs. NARAYANI PILLAI KUTTIPARU AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge at Trivandrum in Land Acquisition Reference No 6/1951 on the file of his court. A plot of land, 84 cents in extent comprised in Survey No. 790 of Cheruvakkal Pakuthy, was acquired by the State on 1-4-1050. This property was owned in equal shares by a mother, Narayani Amma Kuttipparu Amma, and her three sons Sivasankaran Nair, Appukuttan Nair and Parameswaran Pillai. The one-fourth share of Parameswaran Pillai was purchased by Sivasankaran Nair who thus became entitled to a half share in the property. The mother Kuttipparu Amma and her son Appukuttan Nair retained ownership of their respective one-fourth shares. This was the position at the time of the land acquisition proceedings and it was made clear in the written statements filed by Kuttipparu Amma and Sivasankaran Nair before the Land Acquisition Officer. Their claim for compensation was at the rate of Rs. 60/- percent. The Tahsildar prepared a valuation statement fixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 20/- per cent besides the price separately fixed for the trees and building in the property. The Land Acquisition Officer accepted the statement prepared by the Tahsildar and passed an award on the basis of the value estimated by the Tahsildar. It was a single award in favour of all the four sharers to whom the property originally belonged, and no apportionment was made on the basis of the undisputed claims which had been put forward by Kuttipparu Amma and Sivasankaran Nair. This award was objected to by Sivasankaran Nair alone who filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer within the time prescribed by S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act and prayed that the case may be referred to the District Court for a decision on the question of the enhanced value claimed for the land and also for apportioning the amount due to his half share in the property. The Land Acquisition Officer accordingly referred the case to the District Judge Trivandrum, under S.18 and 27 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act (Act XI of 1089). S.18 and 27 of this Act correspond to S.18 and 30 of the Indian Act (Act I of 1894). After taking the case on the file of the District Court, notices were issued to the State and also to the four persons to whom the property belonged. All these parties entered appearance. Sivasankaran Nair, at whose instance the case was referred to the District Court, was treated as the plaintiff in the case and the State was impleaded as the 1st defendant. Kuttipparu Amma, Appukuttan Nair and Parameswaran Pillai were arrayed as defendants 2 to 4. Defendants 2 and 3 filed written statements conceding that the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the property. They also advanced a claim that they should get land value for their respective one-fourth shares at the rate of Rs. 60/- per cent. The State contended that this claim was unsustainable in view of the fact that defendants 2 and 3 had accepted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and had not applied for the case being referred to the District Judge under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge overruled the objection raised by the State and passed a decree in favour of these defendants also. The land value fixed at Rs. 20/- per cent by the Land Acquisition Officer was raised to double that rate and it was directed that compensation at this rate should be paid not only to the plaintiff for his half share of the property, but also to defendants 2 and 3 in respect of their respective one-fourth shares. It is against such a decree passed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 that the State has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The position taken up by the appellant gains full support from the relevant sections in the Land Acquisition Act and also from a series of reported decisions where the identical question had come up for consideration. The Land Acquisition Act which empowers the State to make compulsory acquisition of property, has made provision for payment of adequate compensation to the owners of the property thus acquired. Special provisions have also been made for resolving the disputes that may arise in relation to the distribution of the amount of compensation or as to the quantum of the compensation. Such disputes have to be referred to the Civil Court for adjudication as provided for in S.18 and 27 of the Travancore Act corresponding to S.18 and 30 of the Indian Act. In dealing with such references the court is not exercising its normal jurisdiction under S.9 of C. P. C., but only the special jurisdiction conferred by S.18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. A reference by the Land Acquisition Officer under either of these sections is a condition precedent to the exercise of the courts special jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matters covered by the reference. The exercise of such a special jurisdiction must necessarily be subject to the conditions and limitations imposed by the Statute which has conferred the special jurisdiction on the court.

(3.) The award made by the Land Acquisition Officer is an offer made on behalf of the State, of the price agreed to be paid in respect of the property acquired. If the party in whose favour the award is made accepts the same, the matter becomes final and conclusive. In such a case there can be no reference to the Civil Court as contemplated by S.18 and 30 of the Act. A reference under S.18 can be asked for only by the party who does not accept the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Another condition to be satisfied by S.18 is that there must be a written application by such party to the Land Acquisition Officer requesting that the objections raised by the party may be referred to the civil court for adjudication. It is also clear from sub-s. 1 of S.18 that such a reference can be asked for in respect of four matters viz., (1) the objections to the measurement of the land acquired, (2) objection to the amount of the compensation awarded, (3) objection to the finding regarding the persons to whom the compensation amount is payable and (4) objection to the apportionment of the compensation amount among the several persons interested in the same. Sub-s. 2 of the same section prescribes the period within which the application for reference under sub-s. 1 has to be made. Two of the four matters covered by sub-s. 1 of S.18 are dealt with under S.30 also. S.30 states that after the amount of compensation has been settled, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Land Acquisition Officer may refer such dispute to be adjudicated by the District Court within whose jurisdiction the land is situate. Even though the same matter is dealt with under S.18 and 30, there is one essential difference between the provisions made in these two sections. For a reference contemplated by S.30 it is not necessary that there must be a written application by any of the parties interested in the disputes mentioned in the section. If the Land Acquisition Officer thinks that he cannot give a proper and effective decision regarding such dispute, he can on his own initiative refer the matter to the District Court for decision. But if the Land Acquisition Officer chooses to give a decision on the point in dispute, he can do so by exercising his jurisdiction in respect of that matter. Where he has himself decided the points in dispute, the question of a reference under S.30 will not arise. The party who is not prepared to accept the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer may then invoke the aid of S.18 by filing a written application requiring the matter to be referred to the District Court. Such an application must be filed within the time prescribed by sub-s. 2 of S.18.