Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs The Cochin Malabar Estate And ... on 13 November, 2024
2024:KER:84046
L.A.A.No.469/2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/22ND KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO.469 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 30.06.2011 IN
LAR NO.60 OF 1985 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL
SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
THE COCHIN MALABAR ESTATE AND INDUSTRIES LTD.
VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
REP. BY SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER PUSHKARAKSHAN. 680303.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 06.11.2024, THE COURT ON 13.11.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:84046
L.A.A.No.469/2012 2
JUDGMENT
The Government of Kerala represented by the District
Collector, Thrissur has filed this appeal against the judgment dated
30.06.2011 of the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda in
L.A.R.No.60/1985.
2. The acquisition involved in the case was made under
the erstwhile Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 for the purpose of
the Chimney Dam Project and staff colony. The land acquired was
in fact the land of the erstwhile Cochin Government leased out to
the Cochin Malabar Estate and Industries Limited. On the basis of
the notification issued under section 3(1) of the repealed Kerala
Land Acquisition Act, 1961, on 19.04.1977, the Land Acquisition
Officer passed an award dated 28.02.1981 granting compensation
for the yielding rubber trees cultivated in that property by the
claimant. The Acquisition Officer found that the claimant was
entitled for a total amount of compensation of Rs.70,951/- by
calculating the average yield from the rubber trees as 2.9 Kg and
the price at Rs.7.44/- per Kg. Though the claimant challenged the
above calculation of compensation, the only document relied on
2024:KER:84046
before the court below was the copy of the judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in L.A.A.No.113/1987 in relation to similar
acquisition wherein it was found that the claimant in that case,
which is the very same claimant in the present case, was entitled to
compensation by reckoning the value of yields from the rubber
trees at the rate of Rs.9.82/- per Kg. Relying on the aforesaid
judgment, the learned Additional Sub Judge passed the impugned
award with the finding that the compensation has to be reckoned
for the 996 rubber trees planted in the year 1964 by applying the
multiplier of 20 as the expected future life period, and the
remaining 16 rubber trees planted in the year 1946 by applying the
multiplier of 2 as the future expected life period. In addition to the
above compensation, the learned Additional Sub Judge found that
the claimant was entitled to get 12% interest per annum from the
date of publication of the notification under section 3(1) to the date
of award of the District Collector, and also solatium @ 30% of land
value. Damages worth Rs.30/- per tree from each day from the
date of advance possession till the notice under section 3(1) was
also granted by the Reference Court.
2024:KER:84046
3. The main challenge raised by the appellant is that the
claimant is not entitled for the interest, solatium and other benefits
granted by the Reference Court. According to the appellant, the
claimants are disentitled for the benefits under the amended Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, since the award was passed prior to
30.04.1982. It is also contended that the period from 08.08.1991
to 28.06.2001 while a stay obtained by the claimant from this Court
was pending shall not be reckoned while calculating interest on the
compensation amount.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader representing the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The learned Government Pleader advanced an argument
that the benefits granted by the Reference Court are prima facie
unsustainable since no land belonging to the claimant was acquired
in this case and hence there cannot be any award of interest or
solatium on the land value. The argument in the above regard is
prima facie untenable in view of the definition of land under section
3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 wherein it is provided that
the expression 'land' includes benefits to arise out of land, and
2024:KER:84046
things attached to earth or permanently fastened to anything
attached to the earth. The further contention of the learned
Government Pleader challenging the impugned award of the
Reference Court granting solatium as provided under Section 23(2)
and interest as provided under section 28 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, is also prima facie unsustainable since the Land
Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 makes it clear that the aforesaid
reliefs are to be granted to those acquisitions where the award of
the Land Acquisition Officer was passed even prior to 30.04.1982.
However, the challenge against the benefit of interest granted by
the Reference Court under section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 is found sustainable in view of the specific exclusion,
under Act 68 of 1984, of the aforesaid benefit to those acquisition
proceedings where the award of the Land Acquisition Officer had
been passed prior to 30.04.1982.
6. The disentitlement of the benefits under section 23(1A)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of those acquisitions
where the award was passed prior to 30.04.1982 has been upheld
by the Division Bench decisions of this Court in State of Kerala v.
2024:KER:84046
Mytheen Pillai [1996 (1) KLT 587] and Jayakumar and
Others v. State of Kerala [2016 (5) KHC 842]. However, in
both the decisions, the entitlement of the claimant for the benefits
under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 are upheld.
7. The argument of the learned Government Pleader that
the period from 08.08.1991 to 28.06.2001 when there existed a
stay of proceedings as per the order of this Court, has to be
excluded while reckoning the interest on the compensation, cannot
be accepted since no such exclusions are provided for the reliefs to
which the claimant is entitled under Section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. In Ratti Ram v. Union of India and
Another [(2016) 11 SCC 110], the Apex Court has held that
there is no exclusion of any period contemplated on whatever
account under section 28 of the Act. It is further made clear in the
aforesaid decision that the only reference in that Section is to the
date of dispossession, and that the liability to pay interest starts to
run from that date onwards. Therefore, the contention of the
appellant for exclusion of the period of stay while charging the
2024:KER:84046
interest as provided under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, has no legal basis.
8. In the light of the above discussions, it follows that the
award passed by the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda as per
judgment dated 30.06.2011 in L.A.R.No.60/1985 is liable to be
modified only to the extent of excluding the benefit of interest @
12% per annum granted on the compensation amount from the
date of notification to the date of award under section 23(1A) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
9. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part
excluding the benefit of interest @ 12% per annum granted by the
learned Additional Sub Judge under section 23(1A) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 to the compensation amount from the date of
notification till the date of award of the District Collector. In all
other respects, the award passed by the Reference Court by virtue
of its judgment dated 30.06.2011 stands upheld.
(Sd/-)
G.GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr/
