IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 1518 of 2005(D) --------------------------- (L.A.R.NO.16/1998 ON THE FILES OF THE 2ND ADDL. SUB JUDGE, TVM.) APPELLANT: ADDL.CLAMANTS ------------------------ 1. RAMADEVI, GANAYA, T.C.NO.20/1713, PANDIT COLONY, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VINOD KUMAR, DO. DO. 3. R.LALY, DO. DO. 4. V.PRASANTH, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS ---------------------- 1. R.VIMALAKUMARI, T.C.4/1987, MANALLOORKONAM, PANDIT COLONY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.RADHA, D/O.DEVAKI AMMA, T.C.NO.9/1881, KAILAS, SANKER ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. LEELA, T.C.NO.4/1615, PANAYIL VEEDU, PANDIT COLONY, MELLOORKONAM, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUNITHA, T.C.NO.4/1615, PANAYIL VEEDU, PANDIT COLONY, MELLOORKONAM, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. L.A.A.NO.1518/05 5. SUCHITHRA, T.C.NO.4/1615, PANAYIL VEEDU, PANDIT COLONY, MELLOORKONAM, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. ELSY, T.C.NO.4/1615, PANAYIL VEEDU, PANDIT COLONY, MELLOORKONAM KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPL.TAHSILDAR, L.A.(GENERAL), SREEKANTESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV FOR R3-5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.4137/05 IN L.A.A.NO.1518/05 DISMISSED 21-07-2008 Sd/- , PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1518 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is by the legal heirs of the deceased second claimant in a reference under section 31(2) of the land acquisition Act for apportionment of the disputes between the claimants regarding the compensation deposited by the land acquisition officer before the court. A total extent of 1.20 Ares of land in R.S.No. 128 of Thiruvananthapuram village was acquired by the government for the purposes of the water authority and award was passed for an amount of Rs. 1,22,900/-. The award was passed jointly in favour of J.Bhargavan (C1), R.Velappan ( C2), R.Vimalakumari (C3) and K.Radha (C4). 2. The present appeal is filed by the legal heirs of Velappan (C2) and the same is resisted by the legal heirs of Bargavan (C1) in whose favour only the learned subordinate Judge under the impugned award had directed release of the entire compensation. The appellants had laid claim for proportionate amount of compensation due for 53 squre metres of land on the basis of Ext.A2 sale deed. Ext.A2 is dated LAA.No.1518/05 2 27/01/1996. On the terms of Ext.A2 Bhargavan has conveyed a total extent of one Are and 35 sq. metres of land corresponding to 3 cents and 3 sq. links in favour of Velappan. The appellants' claim is that under the award passed by the land acquisition officer, 53 square metres from out of the property covered by Ext.A2 had also been acquired. The above claim is supported by the Mahazer dated 14/07/1997 prepared by the land acquisition officer at the time when the acquired properties were taken possession of. The land acquisition officer did not become inclined to award proportionate compensation to Sri.Velappan because of the reason that Ext.A2 document is executed between the parties long after the issuance of the initial notification under section 4(1). A reading of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge will show that the same reason found favour with the learned Judge also. According to the learned Judge sale deeds which are subsequent to the date of section 4(1) notification are liable to be ignored. At the same time, the learned Judge has observed in the judgment that if so advised, claimants 2, 3 and 4 can resort to other civil remedies. LAA.No.1518/05 3 3. Heard Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.D.Sajeev, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. Sri.Biju Balakrishnan would submit that it is too technical on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to have declined relief to the appellants and to have relegated them to a second round of litigation before a regular civil court. He drew my attention to the documents such as Ext.A2 and the Mahazer and would argue that there is every justification for the appellants being paid their due share out of the compensation under deposit. 4. Sri.D.Sajeev per contra, would draw my attention to the property description in the schedule of Ext.A2 document. Learned counsel submitted that the same will show that the property which was acquired for the purposes of the water authority has been specifically excluded from the conveyance in favour of the appellants. I am unable to accept the argument of Sri.D.Sajeev. Ext.A2 sale deed is dated 27/1/1996 and the Mahazer dated 14/07/1997 will show clearly that it is on that date that the property was taken possession of from the awardees. In the award Velappan's name is also mentioned as a person LAA.No.1518/05 4 in joint occupation of the premises. This give support to the claim of the appellants that their properties have also been acquired under the award. Going by Ext.A2 sale deed, the execution which is not disputed by the contesting respondents, the remaining extent under the ownership of Sri.Bhargavan could not have been more than 910 sq.metres. Whatever that be, I have no doubt in my mind that the appellants' predecessor Velappan was entitled for proportionate compensation for 53 sq.metres of land. The result is that the appeal will stand allowed. It is found that the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 52475/- + interest as on 31/10/1997 from out of the amounts in deposit. Upon cheque application being filed by the appellants, the learned Subordinate Judge will release the precise amount to the appellants. But in the circumstances, parties will suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1518/05 5