LAWS(KER)-1979-12-5

LEKSHMI CHELLAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On December 07, 1979
LEKSHMI CHELLAMMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that calls for decision in this case is whether, under the provisions of the Trivandrum City Improvement Trusts Act 1 of 1961, solatium is payable for compulsory acquisition of land. Though the claimant sought enhancement of land value in the reference court, there was no evidence in regard to such claim and the case there as well as here was confined at the hearings to the claim for solatium on the market value.

(2.) The acquisition was initiated by a notification under S.47 of the City Improvement Trusts Act and that was followed by a notification under S.53(a) of the Act. Notices under S.9(1) and 9(3) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act were then served on interested parties.

(3.) S.73(a) of the City Improvement Trusts Act provides that for the purpose of acquiring lands the power under the Land Acquisition Act subject to modifications specified in the schedule shall be exercised. We are concerned with Clause.6(2) of the schedule. That provides that sub-s.(2) of S.22 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act shall be omitted and in its place a new sub-section shall be deemed to have been substituted. The new sub-section is not relevant for our purpose. Though the reference is to the Land Acquisition Act of Travancore, that having been repealed and replaced by the Kerala Land Acquisition Act 1961, reference must be taken to the corresponding provision in that Act. That is S.25. The consequence of Clause.6 of the schedule is that S.25(2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act stands omitted for acquisitions under the City improvement Trusts Act. It is this provision, which, in addition to the market value, provides for payment of 15% as solatium in determining compensation. A plain application of the provisions of the City Improvements Trusts Act therefore entails the inevitable consequence that acquisitions under that Act will not enable owners to claim solatium. The court below appears to have taken this view, though there is no discussion in the judgment.