Dr.Vijayamma vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10736 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
 THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 27TH ASWINA, 1945
                  L.A.APP. NO. 57 OF 2011
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2009 IN LAR
    NO.81 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT,ATTINGAL
APPELLANTS/2ND RESPONDENT AND ADDL.CLAIMANTS:

    1    DR.VIJAYAMMA,
         SREE RANGAM VEEDU, UDARA SIROMANI ROAD,
         VELLAYAMBALAM.
    2    MAYA SREENIVASAN, SREE RANGAM VEEDU,
         UDARA SIROMANI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM.
    3    THARA SREENIVASAN, SREE RANGAM VEEDU,
         UDARA SIROMANI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM.
    4    GIREESH SREENIVASAN, SREE RANGAM VEEDU,
         UDARA SIROMANI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM.
         BY ADVS.
         SRI.M.C.SEN (SR.)
         SRI.S.PRAKASH


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND ADDL.CLAIMANTS 6 TO 13:

    1    STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
         DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
    2    THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-69507.
    3    SATHYAVATHI, D/O.BHARATHI, POORNIMA
         DR.PALPU ROAD, MUSEIUM,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695007.
                                        2
L.A.A No.57 of 2011



     4          RISHIKESAN, S/O.BHARATHY, POORNIMA
                DR.PALPU ROAD, MUSEIUM,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695007.
     5          SANTHAKUMARI, POORNIMA,
                DR.PALPU ROAD, MUSEIUM,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695007.
     6          LEELA, T.C.NO.11566,
                MUSEIUM BAYINS COMPOUND,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695007.
     7          USHADEVI, T.C.NO.4125221, THUSHARAM,
                THOTTAM, MANAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016.
     8          HAREENDRAN, HYTEE, MRA-11, MUNDAKKAL,
                KOLLAM- 691001.
     9          K.RAJENDRAN, THEKARU COTTAGE,
                PARAVOOR, KOLLAM-691301.
    10          JYOTHIS CHANDRAN, JYOTHI BHAVAN,
                PRA-28, JEEVAN NAGAR, PATTOM P.O.,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
                BY ADVS.
                R1 BY SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
                R2 BY SRI.SHYAM.T.MATHEW
                R5 BY SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATHSC RAILWAYS




         THIS    LAND    ACQUISITION       APPEAL   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR
FINAL     HEARING       ON   17.10.2023,     THE    COURT    ON   19.10.2023
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      3
L.A.A No.57 of 2011



                    P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
   -----------------------------------------------------------
                     L.A.A No.57 of 2011
   -----------------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 19th day of October, 2023


                            JUDGMENT

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

Second claimant and additional claimants 3 to 5 in L.A.R

No.81 of 2005 on the files of the Sub Court, Attingal are the

appellants. They are aggrieved of the judgment dated

31.03.2009 in the said L.A.R and therefore they have filed this

appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 did not choose to appear

before this Court.

4. An extent of 4.28 Ares of land comprised in Re-

Sy.Nos.484/7, 524/14 and 524/15 of Vettoor Cherunniyoor

Village was acquired for the purpose of doubling railway line

between Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram. The amount of

compensation for the said land was quantified as

L.A.A No.57 of 2011

Rs.2,24,028/-. The Land Acquisition Officer had shown

Sri.Padmanabhan Madhusoodhanan and Dr.Vijayamma as the

persons interested. However, the first appellant staked a claim

that the acquired property belonged to her husband

Sri.Srinivasan as he obtained it by virtue of the partition deed

No.517 of 1970. Since Sri.Srinivasan expired, the second

appellant and her children were claimed to be the persons

entitled to get the compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer

did not accept that claim and therefore he deposited the

compensation amount before the reference court and made a

reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

5. Besides the 1st appellant, appellant Nos. 2 to 4 and

respondent Nos.3 to 10 were impleaded as additional

claimants. The appellants filed a written statement and an

additional written statement contending that the acquired land

was allotted to Sri.Srinivasan and in the thandaper register

there occurred a mistake. The appellants urged that the land

was settled mistakenly in the name of Sri.Madhusoodhanan.

The reference court did not accept the said contention and

L.A.A No.57 of 2011

accordingly rejected the claim of the appellants. By answering

the reference in such terms, the amount of compensation was

ordered to be vested with the Government.

6. There is no dispute as to the fact that the acquired

land is covered by a partition deed No.5175 of 1970 which is

Ext.A1. The survery Nos referred to in Ext.A1 are the old

survey numbers. Sri.Madhusoodhanan is party No.9 and

Sri.Srinivasan was party No.14 to Ext.A1. Third schedule

properties were allotted to Sri.Madhusoodhanan and sixth

schedule properties were allotted to Sri.Srinivasan. A few

items of properties comprised in same survey numbers were

divided and allotted to both of them as per Ext.A1. After such

allotment, mutation should have been effected by settling the

respective properties in accordance with the allotment in

Ext.A1.

7. The definite case of the appellants is that on

account of a mistake crept in the thandaper register,

properties allotted to Sri.Srinivasan were happened to be

shown in the name of Madhusoodhanan. It is their further

L.A.A No.57 of 2011

case that the acquired properties were part of the properties

allotted to Sri.Srinivasan as per Ext.A1.

8. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 did not appear before the

reference court. They remained ex parte despite receiving

notice. They did not chose to appear before this court as well.

As stated, no one has a case that parties to Ext.A1 did not

have title to the acquired property. When the appellants

assert that the acquired property was allotted to

Sri.Srinivasan, their predecessor in interest and respondent

Nos.3 to 10 who are the successors in interest of

Sri.Madhusoodhanan did not come forward to question the

claim of the appellants, the court below should have accepted

the claim of the appellants. Needless to say the revenue

records are not documents of title. When the parties to Ext.A1

partition deed evidently had title to the properties and there is

no inter se dispute between the parties to that document, the

claim of the appellants is liable to be accepted. The

observation of the Land Acquisition Officer based on the

revenue records cannot be the basis for a decision.

L.A.A No.57 of 2011

9. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the

reference court wrongly had declined the claim of the

appellants. The compensation should have been paid to the

appellants, at least, on the condition that they shall refund the

amount, if so ordered.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The amount of

compensation in deposit together with interest, if any, accrued

on such deposit shall be paid to the appellants on their

submitting an undertaking before the Sub Court, Attingal to

redeposit the amount, if so ordered.

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE PV/dkr