Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE16H DAY OF JANUARY201426TH POUSHA, 1935 LA.App..No. 70 of 2004 (B) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN LAR1242002 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA ================== APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ---------------------------------- OMANA, AGED48YEARS, W/O. SAHADEVAN, PUTHENVELIYIL K.R.PURAM, PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADVS.SRI.G.D.PANICKER SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA.
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. GIRIJAMANIY AMMA, VADAKKECHUREZHATHU PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. R4 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.V.K.BEERAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1601-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J., --------------------------------------- L.A.A. No.70 OF2004--------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT
Rival claim of title by appellant and 4th respondent over a strip of land having an extent of 1.62 ares in survey No. 186/11A/C of Pallippuram village, which was acquired for a public purpose, to seek compensation thereof, has given rise to a reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') before the Sub Court, Cherthala. That reference was considered with two other references, that too over disputes between the same parties to claim compensation in respect of some other pieces of land as well, which were also acquired for the same public purpose. The three reference applications were jointly considered and decided by the learned Sub Judge, Cherthala, and in two of them (LAR Nos. 55/2002 and 123/2002) the appellant herein was successful. However, her claim over the land covered by reference in LAR No. 124/2002 was negatived allowing the respondent to receive the compensation deposited over the land acquired under that reference. Aggrieved by the L.A.A.No. 70/2004 2 decision she has filed this appeal. Appellant and 4th respondent, rival claimants, are hereinafter referred to as such for the sake of convenience.
2. 1.62 ares in survey No. 186/11A/C of Pallippuram village was acquired for the Industrial Growth Centre, Pallippuram. Section 4(1) notification was published on 24.01.1997. Possession of property was taken on 16.09.1990 and an award over the acquired land was passed fixing compensation of Rs.20,066/-. Appellant and also 4th respondent set up rival claim of title over the acquired land to claim compensation thereof and that led to the reference under Section 31(2) of the Act. On materials placed by both sides, learned sub judge came to the conclusion that the 4th respondent has title over the acquired land and, accordingly, she was allowed to receive compensation deposited.
3. Concededly, both parties claimed title over the acquired land which was covered and formed part of Ext.B1, a partition deed entered by two sisters. The appellant claimed title over the acquired land under Ext.A3 sale deed executed by one of the two L.A.A.No. 70/2004 3 sharers and respondent under Ext.B2 sale deed executed by the other sharer in Ext.B1 deed. Respondent also relied upon the mahazar prepared in the land acquisition proceedings over the acquired land which indicated that she continued in possession and enjoyment of such land when its possession was taken.
4. Reference court has found that there was some mistake in the survey number noted in the mahazar and also records of the land acquisition proceedings over the land. Whereas, the survey numbers under the title deeds produced by parties referred to the land acquired by them as comprised in survey No. 186/11A or 186/11C in the records of acquisition proceedings, the land was referred to as comprised in survey No. 186/11A/C. That difference being taken note of, reference court has observed that there must have been some mistake in referring to the sub division number by the land acquisition authority. Such inference drawn on the basis of survey sub divisions noted in the title deeds of parties cannot be accepted as true and correct. The court should have called upon sketch and other records to verify whether there was any mistake in the L.A.A.No. 70/2004 4 mahazar prepared over the acquired land in noting the correct survey sub division. Leaving that question, it has to be considered on the materials placed who among the rival claimants has got better title over the property to claim compensation deposited before court. Ext.B1 partition deed would show that when partition was effected among the sharers 36 cents of land comprised in survey No. 186/11A and 4 cents of land comprised in survey No. 186/11C were included with other lands in other survey numbers also Ext.B2 sale deed taken by the respondent, and also the share alloted to her vendor in Ext.B1, would show that land in survey No. 186/11A was involved and no portion of land covered by 186/11C was included. In the case of appellant her vendor, the sharer in Ext.B1 deed, had obtained 4 cents of land in survey No. 186/11C with other portions of land situate in survey No. 186/11A, both lying conjointly. Name of her vendor has been shown as the 'pattadhar' over the 4 cents of land comprised in survey No. 186/11C is seen from the land acquisition records sent to the reference court.
5. Learned counsel for 4th respondent referring to the L.A.A.No. 70/2004 5 description of the acquired property, which showed it as having a 'chira' with coconut trees, aged 25 years, and also the circumstance stated in the mahazar that 4th respondent continued in possession and enjoyment of that property, to contend that the title found in her favour by the reference court is proper, valid and correct. There is nothing more in evidence other than the reference made as above over the 'chira' and coconut trees situated to sustain the claim of title over the acquired property by the 4th respondent in contradistinction to the title deed produced with the entries over 'patta' of such land supporting the case of appellant. Oral evidence tendered by appellant's husband, AW1 with the revenue receipts produced evidencing payment of tax by appellant duly support her claim and title over the land. Where, respondent has got title under her document only in respect of land covered by survey No. 186/11A, in the absence of better evidence from her that the acquired land under reference formed part of her holding covered by such deed, the reference court has gone wrong in accepting her claim of title. Appellant, it is shown, has got title over 4 cents of land in survey No. 186/11C. That L.A.A.No. 70/2004 6 also being taken into account, I find that the claim of appellant over the land acquired has to be upheld in reversal of the decree granted in favour of 4th respondent. In the result, appeal is allowed setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the court in LAR No. 124/2002 and allowing appellant to receive the amount of Rs.20,066/- deposited in court. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. Sd/- S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge