STATE OF KERALA Vs. THELAPPURATH BALA LAKSHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 5656 square feet of land from T. S. 211 of the Kozhikode Municipality were acquired for the construction of a bus stand. At the time of acquisition there were 12 buildings in the acquired property bearing door Nos.1227 to 1238. It is agreed that these buildings were constructed by the kanomtenants. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was on 24 -12 -1952. The jenmi of the property Thelappurath Balalakshmi Amma and kanom tenants owning the buildings bearing Nos. 1228 and 1231 to 1234 and the building bearing door No. 1235 filed applications for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The application filed by the jenmi for reference was numbered as L.A.O.P. 113 of 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode in the said O.P. enhanced the land value to Rs.1000/ - per cent. The kanom tenants were not made parties to L.A.O.P. 113 of 1955. A.S.No. 724 of 1963 is filed by the State against the award passed in L.A.O.P. 113 of 1955. The application for reference filed by the kanom tenant who is the owner of buildings bearing door Nos. 1229 and 1231 to 1234 was numbered as L.A.O.P. 109 of 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge awarded Rs.54225/ - towards the value of the buildings by capitalising the 9 months' rent at 25 times. A. S. 38 of 1964 is filed by the State against the said award.

(2.) THE application for reference filed by the kanom tenant who is the owner of the building bearing door No.1235 is the subject -matter of L.A.O.P. 128 of 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge awarded compensation at 20 times the rental value and including solatium awarded Rs.12,420/ -. A.S. 98 of 1964 is by the State against that award.

(3.) BUT the learned Advocate General contended that the review petition was incompetent and the proceedings based upon the same are void and the variation of the award under appeal is without jurisdiction and has to be ignored by this Court and therefore the appeal can be prosecuted on the merits. The submission of the learned Advocate General was based upon the absence of any provision in the Land Acquisition Act empowering a court to review any award and also because of the wording of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. In the case before us we are concerned with the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894. It was argued by the Advocate General that the right of review is not a procedural one and has to be expressly conferred by the statute. Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act is in the following terms: