BEATRICE DSILVA, Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants 8, 15, 17 and 7 in LAR No. 79 of 1983 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram are the petitioners herein. The very same petitioners are the claimants 1, 7, 11 and 16 in LAR No. 76 of 1983 on the file of the same court. LAR No. 76 of 1983 relates to apportionment of the compensation amount claimants No. 21, 23, Kunhipachi and 1,7,11 and 16 and connected LAR No. 79 of 1983 relates to enhancement of compensation. There are altogether 24 claimants and one Kunhipachi in the apportionment case. The apportionment of the compensation was ordered only in favour of claimant Nos. 21, 23, Kunhipachi and 1, 7, 11 and 16. That means, the apportionment was ordered in favour of 7 persons, though 24 claimants altogether claimed apportionment of compensation.

(2.) IN LAR No. 79 altogether, from the original 18 claimants subsequently additional 19, 20 are added. The claimants Nos. 8,15,17 and 7 are the same persons who are the claimants Nos. 1, 7, 11 and 16 in LAR No. 76 of 1983. Though from the 20 claimants in LAR No. 79 of 1983, the enhancement was awarded only in favour of 7 claimants. These 7 claimants are claimant Nos. 21, 23, Kunhipachi and 8, 15, 17 &7 (1, 7, 11 and 16 in L.A.R. No. 76 of 1983). So it is very clear that the very same 7 claimants including 4 petitioners are granted a decree for apportionment and enhancement of compensation. So the compensation has to be distributed between the aforesaid 7 persons in the manner in which it was decreed in LAR No. 76 of 1983.

(3.) THE legal heirs of the 1st claimant in LAR No. 79 of 83 submitted that they were granted compensation by the reference court. The award was passed in favour of the claimants including claimant No. 1. By the correction made by this Court the position has entirely changed and they are not entitled to any compensation under the decree. According to the legal heirs of the 1st claimant, in fact they are also entitled to enhanced compensation for the properties acquired from them; but by wrong decree passed by the court below no additional compensation was granted in favour of the 1st claimant. It is also submitted that the correction was made only at this distance of time and therefore, they are not able to file any appeal and that there was no necessity for filing any appeal since the decree stands in favour of the 1st claimant till this date.