IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 LA.App..No. 790 of 2001 ---------------------------------- [LAR.NO.20/1987 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM] .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- THE TREASURER, NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY, PERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERRY. BY SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.SRI.P.GOPAL. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS A, B AND D: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE MANNARKKAD MOOPPIL STHANOM, REPRESENTED BY THE RECEIVER IN O.S. NO. 65 OF 1956 OF THE SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. 3. CHANDRAKALADHARAN, S/O. KESAVAN NAIR, NHATTUVEETTIL, KORAVANPADI, CHITTUR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU, R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2010, ALONG WITH L.A.A .NO.718 OF 2001 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.M. JOSEPH & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A. Nos. 718, 719, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 746, 747, 755, 775, 777, 790, 791, 799, 801 & 825 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J , The appeals being connected, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. An extent of 5.5625 hectares of unassessed land (UA) river - dry or ground land in Sy. No. 1318/14 of Agali Village in Mannarkkad Taluk came to be acquired under notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act dated 19.9.1982. The award was passed on 23.9.1986 in respect of the said property. There was dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation. The matter was referred to the court. Before the court, the court has categorized Government of Kerala, represented by District Collector, Palakkad as 'A' claimant. The property in question, which is a part of a larger extent, of which Mannarkkad Moopil Stanam was the registered holder, was LAA 790/2001 & con. cases. 2 under receivership. The receiver, accordingly, is treated as 'B' claimant. The appellant in all these cases claimed to be the lessee under a registered lease deed No.1625/1956 of SRO, Mannarkkad in respect of 2001 acres of land, of which the appellant would claim that the acquired land is also a part. It was treated as 'C' claimant. Persons characterized as 'D' claimants are the persons, who claimed to be in possession of the various portions of the property in question. 3. The reference court has proceeded to find that D claimants, who are all respondents in these appeals, are not entitled to get the compensation. The reference court further relegated the question relating to who among claimants A to C is entitled to compensation to be decided in O.S. 65 of 1956 before Sub Court, Ottappalam. Appeals are carried feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the reference court. LAA 790/2001 & con. cases. 3 4 We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Sri. P.G. Parameswara Panicker and learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant would press before us only one complaint and it is as follows: It is pointed out that right from the beginning of the acquisition proceedings, the appellant has projected a case that the D claimants have no right in the matter and have no right to claim any compensation in respect of the acquisition. There was a dispute relating to apportionment. The acquisition officer passed an award upholding the claims of the D claimants. References were sought under Section 18 in relation inter alia the question of apportionment. He would complain that when there is a dispute relating to apportionment, it was not open to the land acquisition officer to disburse any portion of the amount. However, the acquisition officer has disbursed the amount to the D claimants and did not deposit the amount in court as LAA 790/2001 & con. cases. 4 mandated by Section 31(2) of the Act. He would bring to our notice the fact that the appellant had to approach this court in various rounds of litigation and in particular he referred to us the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. 848 of 1988. He would contend that after the reference court found that the D claimants are not entitled to compensation, the reference court ought to have directed that the amounts, which were paid to them by the Land Acquisition Officer in violation of the mandate of Section 31(2) of the Act, to be deposited in court. 6. Learned Government Pleader would infact contend that the Land Acquisition Officer has only awarded the value of improvements made by the D claimants to them, about which there was no dispute and no interference is called for. 7. On going through the judgment in O.P. 848 of 1988, we notice that the appellant had sought two prayers in respect of the acquisition in question. The first relief LAA 790/2001 & con. cases. 5 sought was to direct reference as prayed for in Ext.P2 in the said writ petition in respect of quantum of compensation and also the question relating to the person entitled to receive the compensation and apportionment. This request was granted. The appellant had sought for a further relief and the said relief was for a direction that the disputed amount should be deposited in court. The finding of the court is as follows: “The petitioner has a further prayer that the disputed amounts should be deposited in court. I do not think the petitioner is at this stage entitled to seek that relief. If the petitioner is entitled in law to receive the amount of compensation which has been awarded to others as occupants, certainly the petitioner will be entitled to seek their relief from the reference court. It is not necessary that there should be any direction to make deposit of these amounts in court at this stage. The petitioner is at liberty to raise this point and seek appropriate relief in LAA 790/2001 & con. cases. 6 relation to those amounts from the court to which reference is made as requested in Ext.P1 in O.P. No. 1770 of 1986 and Ext.P2 in O.P. 848 of 1988.” 8. Bearing in mind the above, we must consider whether there is any scope for grievance for the appellant that the reference court should have directed the amounts, which were paid to the D claimants to be deposited in court. We notice that the reference court has in answer to point No.3 held as follows: “In view of the finding on point Nos.1 to 3, the question whether claimants A, B and C are entitled to receive the compensation and if so what is the quantum, is left open to be decided in O.S. 65/96 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottapalam.” 9. Therefore, from the aforesaid conclusion and the relief granted by the reference court, we find that while the reference court has found that the D claimants are not entitled to the compensation, the reference court has not found that it is the appellant (C claimant), who is entitled to LAA 790/2001 & con. cases. 7 get the compensation. The question as to whether A, B or C party is entitled to get compensation is admittedly yet to be decided and the matter is pending consideration before the Sub Court. About the direction by the reference court that the question relating to entitlement in between A, B and C is a matter, which should receive the attention of the Sub Court, the appellant does not make any complaint before us. If that be so, we cannot at present hold that it is the appellant, who is entitled to the compensation. If the appellant is not entitled to the compensation as of now, it may not be proper for us to direct deposit of the amount, which was received by the D claimants. Under such circumstances, we close these appeals, however, reserving liberty to the appellant to re-open them and seek relief or resort to any other remedy, which is open to the appellant, if it is found that the it is the appellant, who is entitled to the compensation. We also LAA 790/2001 & con. cases. 8 leave open the question of interest, which is also pressed before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. K.M. Joseph, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.