IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 LA.App..No. 840 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.139/2001 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT: 3RD CLAIMANT: -------------------------------------- RAMANKUTTY, SON OF KUNHAN, NELLIKUNNATH, CHERUVAYAL, P.O. NELLARACHAL. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS 2 AND 5 TO 10 AND 11 TO 14 & RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. B.V. SREENIVASAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, SREE SUMABHAVAN, CROSS ROAD III, MALLASANDRA T., DASARAHALLY P.O., BANGALORE-57. 2. B.V. SAVITHRY, D/O.B.R.VELAYUDHAN, SREEVALSAM, PRASANTH NAGAR P.O., T.DHASARA HALLY, BANGALORE-57. 3. B.V. SUSEELA, D/O.B.R.BELAYUDHAN, MANANGATH HOUSE, P.O. THALIKULAM, THRISSUR. 4. B.V. SUMITHRA, D/O.B.R.VELAYUDHAN, KANATH HOUSE, P.O. THRITHALLOOR. 5. E.G. JOTHISH, S/O.LATE SUMATHY, KALLUVAYAL, P.O. NELLARACHAL, THOMATTUCHAL AMSOM. 6. E.G. JITHESH, S/O.SUMATHY -DO- -DO-. 7. GOPALAN, S/O.LATE SUMATHY -DO- -DO-. 8. SOMAVATHY, W/O.LATE SAHADEVAN, BLANGATTU HOUSE, TALIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR. 9. SREEJA, D/O.V.V.SAHADEVAN -DO- -DO-. 10. B.S. SHIBI, S/O.LATE V.V.SAHADEVAN, -DO- -DO-. 11. SABITHA, D/O.LATE V.V.SAHADEVAN, -DO- -DO-. 12. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A.NO.I, KRP AND BSIP, KALPETTA). BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO.840 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- Third claimant, Shri Ramankutty, in L.A.R. No.139 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery, has filed this appeal challenging the decree and judgment passed by the learned Sub Judge by which the Sub Judge had awarded compensation in favour of additional claimants 2 and 4 to 14. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: An area of 0.0413 hectare of garden land comprised in R.S. No.373/2Pt. (corresponding to Old Survey No.582/2Pt) was acquired for a public purpose as per Exhibit X4 Notification dated 14.5.1999. Name of the deceased first claimant was shown as the owner of the land acquired and name of the appellant-third claimant was shown as the person in possession of the said property. Both sides filed their claim petitions before the Land Acquisition Officer. Since there was dispute as to who was the real owner of the property, the matter was referred to the Sub Court under Section 31(2) of L.A.A. NO. 840 OF 2006 -: 2 :- the Land Acquisition Act for determining the title to the property. Both sides appeared before the Sub Court. Second claimant filed a written statement contending that 4.85 acres of land was originally Government land and that was assigned in favour of the first claimant. It was contended that he purchased one acre of land from the first claimant during December, 1977. He claimed compensation in respect of that property. Appellant, who was the third claimant, also filed a written statement admitting that 4.85 acres of land was assigned in favour of the deceased first claimant, Shri B.R. Velayudhan, and he sold the entire property to the appellant during December, 1977 and the appellant was put in possession of the same. But at that time the appellant was unable to pay the sale consideration. So no sale deed was executed. According to the appellant subsequently he paid the entire sale consideration to the original owner of the property on 8.1.1979. It was also contended that the original owner of the land was prepared to execute the sale deed, but he was prevented him from executing the sale deed by his children. He sold 70 cents of land to one Smt.Thachappilly L.A.A. NO. 840 OF 2006 -: 3 :- Lakshmi during 1985 and she was in possession of that land. During the pendency of the reference, first claimant died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional claimants. 3. The reference court found that the appellant has not acquired any right over the property and additional claimants 2 and 4 to 14, the legal representatives of deceased first claimant, were entitled to the compensation awarded and passed a decree to that effect. Challenging that decree and judgment this appeal is filed. The only question arising for consideration is whether the the appellant has established title and possession over the property acquired, before the court below. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the court below placed undue reliance on Exhibits A1 and A2 decree and judgment. It is argued that the subject matter of the suit was not the property now acquired and as such the court below ought not have relied on those documents. It is argued that the subject matter of Exhibit A1 judgment was of 10 cents of property comprised in R.S. No.371/1Pt (Old Sy. L.A.A. NO. 840 OF 2006 -: 4 :- No.571/1B). But the land involved and acquired in this case is the land comprised in R.S. No.373/2Pt (Old Sy.No.582/2Pt. Exhibit A1 shows that though the plaintiff therein claimed title and possession over a larger extent of property, he claimed recovery of possession of the suit properties 10 cents of land alone. In that suit also, the plaintiff-deceased first claimant claimed title and possession of the suit property under the Pattayam issued in W.C.S. No.1093 of 1972 dated 10.10.1973. In that case his contention was that the appellant trespassed into 10 cents of land covered by the certificate of purchase and reduced the same into his possession and constructed a house. But the contention put forward by the appellant was that the plaintiff agreed to sell an extent of one acre of land and he was put in possession of the property in pursuance to the agreement for sale. It is admitted by the appellant that deceased first claimant obtained certificate of purchase in respect of 4.85 acres of land in W.C.S. No.1095 of 1972. It is admitted by both sides that the property covered by the certificate of purchase originally comprised in Sy.Nos.571/1A and 582/2. L.A.A. NO. 840 OF 2006 -: 5 :- Subsequently, resurvey numbers were given to those survey numbers. In this proceedings Government acquired 0.0413 hectare of land comprised in Sy.No.373/2Pt. According to the appellant the property acquired in this case is comprised in Sy.No.371/1. It is admitted by him that the property actually belonged to the deceased first claimant and he was in possession. In Exhibit A1 suit he claimed right over the suit property under an agreement for sale in respect of one acre of land. In this proceedings he claimed that he had purchased this land. According to the appellant the property was sold to him during December, 1977, but he was unable to pay the sale consideration. He paid the balance of sale consideration on 1.8.1979. Deceased first claimant was prepared to execute the sale deed, but he was prevented by his children from executing the sale deed. In this proceedings he is claiming title over the property under an unregistered oral sale deed which is unknown to law. Deceased first claimant claimed possession from 1973 onwards. Though the appellant claimed possession from 1977 December onwards, there is absolutely no material to show that he was in actual possession of the L.A.A. NO. 840 OF 2006 -: 6 :- property from that date onwards. So the finding of the court below that the real owner of the property was the deceased first claimant is perfectly correct and it does not call for any interference. So the appeal is without any merit and the same is only to be dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory Application No.4736 of 2006 shall stand dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. vsv K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ===================== M.F.A. ===================== J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------- TH FEBRUARY, 2008