Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs T. Reghuprasad on 10 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
L.A.APP. NO. 156 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2017 IN
L.A.R.NO.18 OF 2016 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOYILANDY.
BY SMT N.SUDHA DEVI- SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & ADDL.R2:
1 T. REGHUPRASAD,
S/O.APPU NAIR, CHEMBOTHINGAL HOUSE,
NELLIKODE.P.O, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN-673016.
2* THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE IT INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., IST FLOOR,
SANKETHIKA, PF ROAD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695004.
*IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER THE ORDER IN I.A.
NO. 1/2021 DATED 11.11.2021.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
K.A.THANU MOL
R2 BY K.A.ABDUL SALAM
R2 BY SUNIL V.MOHAMMED
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.08.2022, ALONG WITH CO.4 OF 2022, THE
COURT ON 10.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA,
1944
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 4 OF 2022
IN L.A.A.NO.156 OF 2018
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2017 IN
L.A.R.NO.18 OF 2016 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,
KOZHIKODE)
CROSS OBJECDTOR/1ST RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
T.RAGHU PRASAD,
AGED 71 YEARS,
S/O. T. APPU NAIR, CHEMBOTHINGAL HOUSE,
NELLIKODE P. O., KOZHIKODE - 673016.
BY ADVS.
JACOB ABRAHAM
KOCHUMOL KODUVATH
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & 2ND ADDL.RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE - 673020.
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
KOYILANDI - 673305.
3
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
3 KERALA STATE IT INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
THE FIRS FLOOR, SANKETHIKA, PATTOM PALACE P.
O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
BY ADVS.
R1-R2 BY SMT N.SUDHA DEVI- SPL.GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
R3 BY K.A. ABDUL SALAM
R3 SUNIL V.MOHAMMED
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP
FOR FINAL HEARING ON 03.08.2022, ALONG WITH LA.App.NO.156
OF 2018, THE COURT ON 10.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Ajithkumar, J.
The State of Kerala filed this appeal under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Order XLI, Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and
decree in L.A.R.No.18 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sub
Court, Kozhikode. The L.A.R. arose on the reference under
Section 18 of the Act. The 1 st respondent is the claimant. He
has filed the Cross Objection, dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader, the
learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent and the
learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
3. An extent of 0.0552 Hectares of land comprised in
re-survey No.172/6 of Nellikode Village belonging to the 1 st
respondent was acquired for the purpose of setting up an IT
Park at Kozhikode. The notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act was issued on 21.08.2009. An award was passed on
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
05.02.2011. Possession of the property was taken over on
09.02.2011. The 1st respondent protested against the
sufficiency of compensation. On the basis of the reference
made to the Sub Court, Kozhikode, L.A.R.No.18 of 2016 was
initiated. After trial, the Reference Court fixed the land value
at Rs.1,85,000/- per cent and passed a decree as follows:
"(1) That the respondents do pay to the claimant a sum of
Rs.19,17,354/- (Rupees nineteen lakh seventeen thousand
three hundred and fifty four only) being the enhanced
compensation for land, improvement, structures.
(2) That the claimant is also entitled to get 30%
solatium on the enhanced land value of Rs.19,17,354/-.
(3) That claimant is entitled to get 12% additional
compensation on the enhanced land value of Rs.19,17,354/-
for the period from the date of Section 4(1) notification ie.,
21.08.2009 till the date of award ie., 05.02.2011.
(4) That the claimant is entitled to get 9% interest on
the enhanced compensation ie., enhanced land value,
30% solatium and 12% additional compensation, for the
period of one year from the date of taking possession
ie., from 09.02.2011 and thereafter at the rate of 15%
per annum till the date of payment.
(5) That the respondent do pay to the claimant a sum of
Rs.15,135/- being the cost of this reference."
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
4. The State is aggrieved of fixing the land value at
Rs.1,85,000/- per cent. It is contended that the Reference
Court went wrong in fixing such a value for the land merely on
the basis of guesswork. On the other hand, the 1 st respondent
assailed the award by contending that the acquired land
would fetch Rs.10 lakhs per cent, but the Reference Court
awarded only a meager enhancement. It is contended that the
land involved in Ext.A3 is similar and similarly situated to the
acquired land, and the Reference Court should have accepted
Ext.A3 as exemplar value. Accordingly, the 1 st respondent
sought to enhance the market value of the land to Rs.10 lakhs
per cent.
5. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 claiming
interest for the award amount during the period when the
amount was kept in revenue deposit, ie., from 09.02.2012 till
07.01.2016. The case of the 1 st respondent is that instead of
depositing with the account of the court the amount due to
him, as contemplated in Section 31 of the Land Acquisition
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
Act, the appellant claimed to have deposited the award
amount in a revenue deposit, thereby the appellant itself was
utilising the said amount during all the periods till it was
disbursed to the 1st respondent. He, therefore, claims that he
is entitled to get interest during the said period.
6. The 2nd respondent has filed a reply affidavit in
I.A.No.2 of 2021. It is contended that the award amount was
deposited in the revenue account as provided in the relevant
rule and notice regarding the said deposit was duly issued. It
was due to the lapse on the part of the 1 st respondent alone,
he could not receive the amount in time. Therefore, there is
no justification for claiming interest for the amount during the
period in which the amount was available with the revenue
deposit for being drawn by the 1 st respondent. Accordingly,
the 2nd respondent seeks to reject the claim for interest.
7. It is pointed out by the learned Government
Pleader as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent that this Court passed a common judgment in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
L.A.Appeal No. 488 of 2015 and connected cases on
28.05.2018. The findings in the said judgment with regard to
fixation of the market value of the land in category No.1 is
applicable to the land involved in this case as well. Category
No.1 lands involved in acquisition as per Section 4(1)
notification dated 21.08.2009 are the garden lands with road
access. The property involved in this case also is of the same
kind and valued by the Land Acquisition Officer included it in
category No.1.
8. L.A.A.No.488 of 2015 is one among the appeals
disposed of as per the common judgment dated 28.05.2018. In
L.A.A.No.488 of 2015, the market value of the land which
included in category No.1 was fixed by this Court as
Rs.1,35,000/- per cent. In view of that, this L.A.A. is liable to be
allowed by refixing value of the land at Rs.1,35,000/-. The Cross
Objection is therefore liable to be dismissed. The 1 st respondent is
hence entitled to compensation by fixing the market value of the
land at Rs.1,35,000/- per cent along with all statutory benefits.
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
9. The 1st respondent claimed interest for the amount
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer of Rs.9,25,902/- for
the period from 09.02.2012 till 27.01.2016 at the rate
admissible under Section 34 of the Act. The facts averred by
the 1st respondent are not disputed. The Land Acquisition
Officer passed the award on 05.02.2011. Possession was
taken over on 09.02.2011. The 1 st respondent did not turn up
to receive the award amount. It is contended by the 2 nd
respondent that due notice was given to the 1 st respondent to
receive the award amount and since he did not turn up, the
amount was deposited in a revenue account.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent would contend that it is mandatory under Section
31 of the Act to deposit the amount of compensation in the
court and any violation thereof will oblige the State to make
payment to the claimant interest in terms of Section 34 of the
Act. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in Ivo Agnelo Santimano
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
Fernandes and others v. Government of Goa and
another [(2011) 11 SCC 506].
11. The learned Government Pleader, on the other
hand, would contend that going by Rule 31(2) of the Land
Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990, in the event of failure of a
claimant to receive the award amount despite receiving
notice, the Land Acquisition Officer shall pay the amount into
the Treasury as a revenue deposit payable to the person to
whom it is due. In terms of the provisions of the said rule, the
Land Acquisition Officer had issued a notice to the 1 st
respondent in Form No.10(b), a copy of which has been
produced as Annexure R2(a). Therefore, the learned
Government Pleader as well as the Standing Counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent would contend that the 1st
respondent is not entitled to get the interest. It is also
contended that it was only for the fault of the 1 st respondent
he could not receive the amount in time and that also
disentitles him from claiming interest.
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
12. Annexure R2(a) shows that notice to the 1st
respondent was served by affixture. He does not have a
contention that the same was not a valid notice. So it cannot be
said that there was no notice regarding the deposit of
compensation amount with the revenue account. The Land
Acquisition (Kerala) Rules were framed by the State in the
exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 55 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Rule 13(2) explains the provisions of
Section 31 of the Act by prescribing a different kind of account
for depositing the award amount. It cannot be said that the said
rule is ultravires the Statute. But by such deposit alone, whether
the State would be absolved from making payment of interest, is
a question to be decided independently. In Ivo Agnelo (supra),
the Apex Court held that,-
"19. In the light of the abovesaid principle, we are of
the view that the contentions of the respondents
cannot be accepted. The Act requires that the interest
be deposited in court, and the same has been upheld in
the case of Prem Nath Kapur & another v. National
Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. & others reported in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
(1996) 2 SCC 71. In the present case, the respondents
did not deposit the amount in court, but in their
Revenue account and utilized the same. Even if the
respondent State does pay the compensation to the
claimants directly, and the same is not collected, the
respondent State cannot then keep the said money
with itself and utilize it. In such cases, after a
reasonable period, if the claimants do not come forward
to collect compensation, then it should be deposited in
court by the State. Allowing the State to keep the
compensation with itself and utilizing it cannot possibly
be permitted being contrary to the provisions of the Act
and the law laid down in Prem Nath Kapur (supra).
Hence, the judgment of the High Court is clearly
erroneous and deserves to be set side."
13. Here also, the deposit was made in the revenue
account. It goes without saying that even after making such a
deposit, the amount is at the hands of the State itself and the
same would be available to be utilised for State purposes.
Further, the reasoning given by the Apex Court for directing to
pay interest is that if the claimant does not collect the amount
even after a reasonable period of making the deposit in the
revenue account, the award amount should be deposited in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
court by the State. Here, after giving notice regarding the
deposit in the revenue account, the 1st respondent-claimant
did not receive the amount. The State, therefore, should have
transferred the deposit to the account of the court after a
reasonable time. The failure definitely casts liability on the
State to pay interest for the sum to the 1 st respondent-
claimant.
14. Viewed so, we are of the view that the 1 st
respondent is entitled to get interest for the award amount of
Rs.9,25,902/- for the period from 09.02.2011 to 27.01.2016
as provided in Section 34 of the Act.
To sum up,
(1) L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 is allowed;
(2) The judgment and decree is L.A.R.No.18 of 2016 of the
Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode are modified by refixing
the land value at Rs.1,35,000/- (One Lakh and Thirty-
five thousand only) per cent;
(3) The 1st respondent-claimant is entitled to get all the
statutory benefits on such market value;
(4) Cross objection No.4 of 2022 is dismissed.
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
(5) I.A.No.2 of 2021 is allowed by directing to pay interest
at the rates prescribed in Section 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act for the award amount of Rs.9,25,902/-
for the period from 09.02.2011 to 27.01.2016.
All other interlocutory applications in the L.A.A. and
Cross Objection are closed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018 &
Cross Objection No.4 of 2022 in
L.A.A.No.156 of 2018
APPENDIX OF LA.APP. 156/2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM No. 10
(b) u/s 12(2)
