MURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYAN V. STATE OF KERALA

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 15

MURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYAN V. STATE OF KERALA

CITATION	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2012AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1772, AIRONLINE 2021 SC 141
DATE OF JUDGMENT	MARCH 02, 2021
COURT	THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	MURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYAN
RESPONDENT	STATE OF KERALA
BENCH	JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI AND JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
CASE RELATED ACTS & PROVISIONS.	LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894

INTRODUCTION

The appellant, Murali Alias Dhanajanyan’s land pertains to an area of 30.1 Ares of land, comprising of 28.89 Ares of wet land and 1.21 Ares of dry land situated in Cherthala, Kerala which was acquired by the government for the construction of railway line. Along with him his brother Sugandhan Sanu and his father’s land was acquired for the same purpose. Appellant’s land was acquired by issuing a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, under the same notification his father’s and brother’s land was acquired. The possession of the land was done on 9/11/1981 and the compensation was determined on 15/04/1982 by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation of these lands at Rs. 454 per Are for wet land, and Rs.2, 137 per Are for dry land.

The present civil case determines the disparity in the land acquisition compensation determination. The case focuses on the Land Acquisition Act, 1894’s Section 28(A) determines the recalculation of the compensation.

FACTS:

The appellant received partial payment of the compensation which was decided by the land acquisition officer on 29.04.1982.
The appellant filed a reference Petition before the subordinate court, Cherthala. Similarly, the appellant’s brother and father also filed a reference Petition before the subordinate court.
The Reference Court passed a judgment dated on 14.03.2001, an order to enhance the compensation of the appellant’s father by Rs 8,500 per Are. Subsequently the reference petition of the appellant’s brother, the court relied on the earlier order, increased the compensation and granted Solatium @ 30% of the amount awarded and other benefits under section 23 (1A) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894.
The Reference Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed as there was no legal representative from the appellant’s side and it was considered that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an application for restoration of the Reference Petition, citing the absence of the counsel on the date of hearing. The Reference court dismissed the application.
The appellant filed a civil writ petition before the Kerala High Court to challenge the order of the Reference court and the order of dismissing the restoration application. On 17.10.2010 set aside the order of the reference court and restored the file to the subordinate judge.
The Reference Court on 28.03.2008 held that the reference application was barred by the limitation as it was filed beyond six months from the date of knowledge of the Collector’s award. The Court declined to answer the Reference as it was not bound to do so. The High Court determined that it would not be appropriate to overturn the Subordinate Judge’s well-reasoned decision in the absence of any compelling arguments from the Appellant over the excessive 15-year delay.
Aggrieved by the Decision the appellant filed a writ petition in the hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES:

Whether the appellant be granted the compensation under section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

CASE RELATED PROVISIONS:

SECTION 4 (1): Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon

Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] that land in any locality [is needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company] a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language] and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification.

Table of Contents

SECTION 28-A: Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.

Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section

(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.

SECTION 23 (1A): Matters to be considered in determining compensation

In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section].

[(1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier explanation. In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.]

COMBINED CONTENTIONS RAISED:

1. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant relies on section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to re-determine the compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, in 1997 the appellant along with his father and brother had simultaneously filed the reference petition to challenge the Land Acquisition Officer award. But only his father and brother’s compensation was enhanced and not the appellant’s.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the enhancement of the compensation is covered under Section 28 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the reference application was time barred by limitation as it was filed beyond six months from the date of acknowledgement of collector’s award.

JUDGMENT:

The Court held that there was no delay from the appellant’s side as the appellant L.A.R. No 23/1997 along with his father L.A.R. No 25/97 and his brother L.A.R. No 22/97 was acquired under same notification Survey No. 166. The reference petition in all the three cases was filed by the appellant, his father and brother during the same time in the year 1997 and the Reference Court awarded Rs. 8,500 per Are for lands owned by the appellant’s father and brother under the same Notification. The court found no reason for denying the compensation to the appellant.

The Court Ruled that the Reference Court did not avert earlier judgments passed, the appellant’s father and brother were not denied relief because of the delay in filing the Reference Petition.

The Court considers it appropriate to grant the compensation to the appellant @ Rs 8,500 per Are for the land he owned. The appellant is entitled to Solatium @ 30% of the amount awarded and other benefits under Section 28 and Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, along with half the cost incurred in the proceedings. Appellant is entitled to interest at the same rate as awarded to the claimants in other cases. Judgments of the High Court and Reference Court are set aside.

ANALYSIS:

In this case, the Court’s (Reference court and High Court) decision to deny the appellant’s compensation was based solely on the delay of filing Reference Application. Since on the day of hearing the appellant had no legal counsel on his behalf it was decided that the amount fixed by the collector is adequate.

The Reference Court relied on section 28 (1A) where the application was to be made to the collector within the period of three months from the date of the grant of the award, but in this case the application was beyond six months time period, so the court refused to entertain the case.

However, the Supreme Court held that the appellant’s land was acquired under the same notification as the father’s and brother’s was acquired. Yet the father and brother were granted the compensation and not the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the Reference Court did not revert to earlier rulings in which the appellant’s father and brother were not denied relief due to Reference Petition’s delayed submission.

Hence, the Supreme Court found no reason to deny appellant’s compensation.

CONCLUSION

In this case, the Supreme Court focused on Section 28 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and not the later part of the section [section 28 (1A)] where the compensation was denied on the basis of delay of application. Court focused on the fact that the reference application made by the appellant, appellant’s father and brother were made simultaneously under the same notification, so the appellant is entitled to compensation.

REFERENCE:

Case Analysis Written by

Name: Purva Kamlesh Todankar

College Name: VES College of Law, Mumbai

Course: B.A LLB

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.