IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 183 of 2004() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/08/2003 IN &LAR.26/1997 IN LAR.38/1996 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): SECOND CLAIMANT ----------------------------- T.S.JALALUDHEEN RAWTHER, KURUVIKATTU VEEDU, CHITTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ 1ST CLAIMANT ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SMT. THANKAMMAL BEEVI, THANATHUMELETHIL PETTA, PATHANAMTHITTA. (DIED) 4. FATHIMA BEEVI, PLAMKUTTATHIL HOUSE, CHATHENTHARA P.O., KOLLAMULA. 5. MEERASAHIB P.S., PAZHAYAVEEDU, PETTA, THYKAVIL, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 6. NOORTAHAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOSUE, PETTA, THYKAVIL, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 7. SALBATH BEEVI, KALIYIKAL, MUTHOOR P.O. THIRUVALLA. 8. SALEENA, KIZHAKKE VEEDU, PETTA, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 9. THANGAMAL BEEVI, PULINIKKUNNATHIL, MUNDUKOTTACKAL P.O. POOVANPARA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. UMMARKHAN, PAZHAYAVEEDU, PETTA, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 8. SHYJU SATHAR, PAZHAYAVEEDU, PETTA, PATHANAMTHITTA. (R4 TO R11 IMPLEADED AS LRS OF DECEASED R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 23/1/2008 IN I.A. NO.231/2008) ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU FOR R2 SRI.BIJI MATHEW FOR R3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 959/2004 IN L.A.A. NO.183/2004 DISMISSED 16/3/2010 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 183 OF 2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Reference Court in a combined reference under Section 31(2) and Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Sub Judge has found that the appellant, who was the second claimant, is not entitled for any portion of the enhanced compensation. Answering the Section 18 Reference, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced by the court below. There is no challenge against the impugned judgment to the extent it pertains to the Reference under Section 18 i.e. regarding the compensation as refixed by the Reference Court. 2. The challenge in this appeal, which is filed by the second claimant, is only regarding the refusal of the court below to direct that portion of the enhanced compensation be paid to him. L.A.A.No.183/2004 2 3. Sri.V.Philip Mathews, learned counsel for the appellant, addressed very extensive arguments before us on the basis of all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. The learned counsel, in fact, drew our attention to the oral testimony of the first claimant, who is the sister of the appellant, in which she even stated that in case the court below enhances the compensation answering the reference under Section 18, she will not have any objection in paying to the appellant what is due to him as his share. Sri.Philip Mathew also submitted that during the pendency of the present appeal, a separate agreement was executed between the appellant and his sister, the first claimant, before the court below on the terms of which the appellant is to be paid a portion of the revised compensation awarded by the Reference Court. However, before that agreement could be implemented, the sister of the appellant passed away and it is her children who are now standing in the way. 4. The submissions of Sri.Philip Mathew were not opposed before us by anybody. But, we can not for that reason alone interfere with the impugned judgment and allow the appeal as requested by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have L.A.A.No.183/2004 3 scanned the impugned judgment as well as the records which are available before this court. It is seen that, before the Reference Court, a statement was filed by the present appellant to the effect that the entire compensation to be awarded by the court in the reference under Section 18 as well as in the original compensation, which was under deposit, can be paid to his sister, the first claimant. Though the above conduct of the appellant was sought to be explained by him in his evidence, the explanation was not found convincing by the court below. We are also not convinced by the above explanation because we find that a regular suit for partition was instituted as O.S. No.129/2002 before the Sub Court seeking partition of the acquired property. That suit was finally dismissed. That being the situation, we are of the view that the court below is not to be blamed for having decided the reference in the way it has done under the impugned judgment. 5. If, as a matter of fact, during the pendency of this appeal any separate agreement has been entered into between the appellant and the deceased sister, it is for the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings for implementation of that agreement in L.A.A.No.183/2004 4 accordance with law. The appeal will stand dismissed. But, having regarding to the relationship between the parties, we direct both sides to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk