IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 LA.App..No. 434 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.325/1998 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS 7 TO 9. ------------------------------------------ 1. JOSEPH, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL, ENANALLOOR. 2. MATHEW, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYEILI, ENANALLOOR. 3. ROSA W/O.THOMAS, PANAYELIL, ENANALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1 TO 6 & 10 TO 17. ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. JOSE, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL, ENANALLOOR. 3. THOMAS, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL, ENANALLOOR. 4. ANTHAPPAN, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL, ENANALLOR. 5. MATHAI, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL, ENANALOOR. 6. MARY, D/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL,ENANALLOOR 7. BRIJITH D/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL, ENANALOOR. 8. K.J.ROSE, W/O.LATE JOSE, PANAYELIL HOUSE, ENANALOOR KARA, ENANALOOR VILLAGE. 9. RAAJESH, S/O.LATE JOSE, PANAYELIL HOUSE, ENENALLOOR VILLAGE. 10. JOSEPH, PANEYEILI, PERUMBALOOR, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE. 11. MARIAM, C/O.P.V.JOSEPH, PARIYARATHUVEEDU KARIMANNOOR P.O. 12. THRESSIA, C/O.IMMANEL POOKKATTUSALIL (MUDIYIL), PUTHUKKAD P.O., CHAVARA. 13. MATHAI IYPE, PANAYELIL, PERUMBALLOOR, (DIED). 14. YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL, ANIKKADU, AVOLY P.O .(DIED). 15. ANNAMMA, W/O.MATHAI, PANAYELIL, PERUMBALLOOR. ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R.8,R9 SRI.PRASANTH M.P FOR R.8.R9 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.434 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The bone of contention between the parties in this appeal is Ext.X1 consent, by which the predecessor -in-interest of respondents 8 and 9 and the legal heirs of Sri. Yohannan original owner of the properties, had consented that the entire compensation for the acquired properties can be disbursed to the present appellants. The present appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the acquired properties. It was from their possession that the property was taken over by the Government. Pursuant to Ext.X1, the initial compensation of Rs.8,000/- was paid to the present appellants. This was done relying on Ext.X1. Dispute arose thereafter before the land acquisition officer. It was claimed by the contesting respondents that, they being the title holders, should be paid the entire compensation. Relying on Ext.X1, the appellants contended that Ext.X1 having been voluntarily given and the same having been acted upon, it is not open to respondents 8 and 9 to turn round and claim L.A.A..No.434/2006 2 compensation. 2. Sri.Mathews K.Philip, learned counsel for the appellants, addressed me very strenuously on all the grounds raised in the appeal memo. He argued that there was no scope for any enquiry before the land acquisition officer since Ext.X1 had been given and the officer should have disbursed the entire compensation relying on Ext.X1 which had once been relied on by him. 3. Sri.R. Bindu Sasthamangalam, counsel for respondents 8 and 9, would place strong reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench in Ranee Sidhan v. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition (1974 K.L.T. 724) . He drew my attention to the award file. He submitted that the award will show that the entire compensation is towards land value and the statutory benefits is calculated upon such land value. No portion of the compensation is towards value of improvements. He further submitted that no claim statement was filed by the present appellants making any claim towards the value of improvements. 4. I have considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar and I have gone through the entire records which are L.A.A..No.434/2006 3 available. I will immediately notice that the balance compensation amount now presently under deposit i.e.27,596/- represents the value of the acquired land and the statutory benefits due upon such value. Total compensation of Rs.35,596/- was determined and the advance amount of Rs.8,000/- already paid to the appellants was deducted. The file also reveals that the claim statement was filed in the award enquiry only by the predecessor in interest of the contesting respondents. He claimed land value at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per cent. Sri.Mathews K.Philip would highlight before me Ext.X1 consent. 5. On a reading of Ext.X1, it is seen that an unconditional consent was given by the predecessor in interest of the contesting respondents for disbursement of the entire compensation to the appellants. But, it has been clearly laid down by the Full Bench in Ranee Sidhan's case (supra) that failure on the part of the party who is interested in the amount under the acquisition to claim compensation or part thereof, or his failure to dispute the claims advanced by others, or even an admission that another is entitled to the compensation amount, in proceedings before the Collector cannot preclude him from L.A.A..No.434/2006 4 advancing his claim and establishing the same, at any subsequent stage, before the Collector or before the Court, so long as the rule of conclusive evidence stated in Section 31 of the Act is not in his way. His conduct, failure to claim or to dispute another's claim, or the admission, as the case may be, can, if established be a relevant fact under the ordinary rules of evidence in assessing the merits of his claim, but he is under those rules of evidence also entitled to explain away these facts, and to establish his title to compensation or part thereof. It is seen that the appellants did not have any claim for title over the acquired property. Their claim could only be that they are in possession and they are entitled to the value of the improvements. It is not disputed that the appellants were in possession. But, as already indicated, compensation amounts represents value of the land only. Following the judgment of the Full Bench I confirm the judgment of the reference court. The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk