Kerala High Court
Government Of Kerala vs The Cochin Malabar Estates And ... on 13 November, 2024
2024:KER:84043
L.A.A.No.576/2012 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. 576 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR NO.61 OF 1985 OF
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 30.06.2011
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 680 003
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. K.M. FAISAL
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
THE COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD
VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
REP BY SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER,PUSHKARAKSHAN.
PIN-680 303
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:84043
L.A.A.No.576/2012 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.61/1985.
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issued under section 3(1) of the repealed Kerala Land Acquisition Act,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.48,160/- 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 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
2024:KER:84043
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 310 rubber trees planted in the year 1962 by applying the multiplier
of 17 as the expected future 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.
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
2024:KER:84043
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 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
2024:KER:84043
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. 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.
2024:KER:84043
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 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.61/1985 is liable to be modified
only to the extent of excluding the benefit of interest @ 12% per
2024:KER:84043
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/
