ANNA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the merits of the case, the court below on a reference under S. 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the act, found that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was not adequate; it also determined the amount of enhanced compensation which the appellants herein would have been entitled to; however, the reference application was rejected on the ground that in pursuance to the notice under s. 9 (3) of the Act the appellants did not make a specific claim for compensation and therefore there was a bar under S 27 of the Act for the appellants claiming any amount in excess of what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) THE counsel for the appellants submitted that the rejection of the reference application was not justified either in law or on facts. It is his submission that in the notice under S. 9 (3) of the Act the amount offered by the Land 'acquisition Officer was not shown; nor was the statement of valuation shown to him by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of hearing. He also submitted that there was no interval of not less than 15 days between the date of service of notice under S 9 (3) of the Act and the date of hearing. THE penalty provision contained in S 27 of the Act, according to the counsel, would operate only where the mandatory provisions of S 9 (3) of the Act are shown to have been fully and correctly complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer. He has also a case that in as much as the bar under S 27 of the Act was not pleaded, not even remotely suggested, in what is purported to be the statement of the State filed in the reference court, the appellants were precluded from raising that point, and the court below was not justified in treating the oral submission of the Government Pleader at the time of the bearing as a substitute for pleading of the State.

(3.) BEFORE parting with this Judgment 1 should like to say a few words about the manner in which this case was conducted in the court below on behalf of the Collector who made the reference under S. 20 of the Act. What is purported to be the "statement" is not signed by the collector (Land Acquisition Officer), but by the Government Pleader on behalf of the State. There is not even one word with specific reference to any of the pleadings in this case. It is written on what looks like a piece of rough brown paper in a very untidy manner. To me it appears that this is a 'readymade' statement which can be pressed into service in any Land Acquisition Reference, changing only the number and cause title of the case before the reference court, as it contains only a bald denial of the maintainability of the claim, absolutely without any reference to specific pleadings, facts or figures. The manner in which the Land Acquisition Officer conducted the enquiry and the manner in which the case was conducted before the reference court have been commented upon by the Subordinate Judge himself in paragraph 4 of the judgment under appeal, which I shall extract for the facility of reference. 'what the claimant is entitled to is the market price as on the date of section 3 (1) Notification. In the instant case there is nothing on record to show the date of section 3 (1) Notification. The reference does not contain a statement as contemplated in section 21 of the Act. A copy of the award filed along with the reference does not show the date of section 3 (1)Notification. Rw. 1 the only person examined on behalf of the Stale also does not swear to the date of section 3 (1) Notification. Apart from that, the award and the testimony of Pw. 1 do not show that any enquiry was made in respect of the value of similar land in the locality. The award does not even show on what basis the valuation of the land was arrived at. True, the State has produced ext. A-1 document and the learned Government Pleader submitted that land value has (was ?) fixed on the basis of Ext-A-1. But there is nothing on the record or in evidence to show that valuation was fixed on the basis of Ext. A-l. In this connection the testimony of Pw. 1 who is alleged to have recommended the valuation of the acquired property after inspection of the same is telltale. In chief examination she has sworn 'sec ion 3 (1) Notification x xx There is absolutely no other material before the court to show that any enquiry at all regarding the value of the property or the building was conducted. " I feel the way in which the whole thing has been handled by the Land Acquisition Officer when the matter was pending before him, and at the stage when it was-pending in reference before the Subordinate Judge is deplorable The function of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act is quasi judicial in nature and he is required under law to make an enquiry to find out as nearly as possible the value of similar lands in the locality prevailing at the time of S. 3 (1) Notification. May be that the land involved is only Q. 0100 Hectare of land and the parties are comparatively poor; that does not mean that the Land Acquisition Officer can decide such matters in a casual manner, disregarding the mandatory provisions of the statute, and he can afford to be indifferent when the matter comes before the court on reference. The court will come down heavily on such officers who, while discharging their official functions show scant regard both to the letter and spirit of the law which they are enjoined to follow.