MURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYANversusSTATE OF KERALA

166                       [2021]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 166                 [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A                     MURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYAN
                                         v.
                               STATE OF KERALA
                          (Civil Appeal No. 138 of 2012)
B                                MARCH 2, 2021
              [INDU MALHOTRA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
             Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.28(A) and s.4(1) – Re-
      determination of compensation in accordance with enhanced
      compensation awarded to other land owners when lands acquired under
C
      a common Notification – Lands owned by appellant, his father and his
      brother, which were situated in the same survey number, acquired under
      a common Notification issued u/s.4(1) in the year 1981 – Award of
      Land Acquisition Officer was contemporaneously challenged by
      Appellant, his father and his brother in the year 1997 in separate
D     Reference petitions – In Reference petitions filed by appellant’s father
      and brother, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8,500/
      - per Are – In case of appellant however, the Reference Court held that
      his Reference Application was barred by limitation – Relying upon
      s.28(A), claim of appellant for re-determination of compensation in
      accordance with enhanced compensation awarded to his father and
E
      brother – Held: The Reference Court did not advert to earlier judgments
      passed by the same Court in Reference Applications filed by father and
      brother of Appellant, wherein a uniform rate of Rs. 8,500 per Are was
      granted – The Reference Court did not hold that delay in filing Reference
      Petitions in the case of father and brother of Appellant was a ground to
F     deny them relief – Land belonging to Appellant is similarly situated in
      the same Survey – No reason why compensation awarded in Reference
      Applications filed by father and brother of Appellant is not granted to
      Appellant @ Rs.8,500 per Are for land which was acquired under the
      same Notification.
G           Allowing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: The Reference Court has not even adverted to the
      earlier judgments passed by the same Court in L.A.R. No. 25/1997
      filed by the father, and L.A.R. No. 22/97 filed by the brother of the
      Appellant, wherein a uniform rate of Rs. 8,500 per Are was granted.
H
                                        166
       MURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYAN v. STATE OF KERALA                           167


The Reference Court did not hold that the delay in filing the                A
Reference Petitions in the case of the father and the brother of the
Appellant was a ground to deny them relief. The land belonging to
the Appellant is similarly situated in the same Survey No. 166. There
is no reason why the compensation awarded in L.A.R. No. 22/97
and L.A.R. No. 25/97 is not granted to the present Appellant @
                                                                             B
Rs.8,500 per Are for land which has been acquired under the same
Notification dated 11.05.1981. It is considered appropriate to grant
compensation to the Appellant @ Rs.8,500 per Are for the land owned
by him. The Appellant is entitled to Solatium @ 30% of the amount
awarded, and other benefits under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as well as half of the costs incurred        C
in the proceedings. Appellant is further entitled to Interest at the
same rate as awarded to the claimants in L.A.R. No. 22/97 and L.A.R.
No. 25/97 filed at the instance of the father and brother of the
appellant. [Paras 15, 16][170-A-E]
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 138 of                 D
2012
      From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2008 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P.(C).NO.29939 of 2008(L)..
     Abhilash MR, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mohammed Sadique, Ms.
Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Advs. for the appellant.                             E

       C. N. Sreekumar, Sr. Adv., G. Prakash, Advs. for the respondent
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       INDU MALHOTRA, J.
                                                                             F
      1. The present Civil Appeal 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 Survey No. 166/5-5 in Cherthala North Village, Kerala owned by the
Appellant, which was acquired vide Notification issued under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 11.05.1981. The land was
acquired for the public purpose of construction of the Ernakulam-Alappuzha   G
Kayanukulam BG railway line.
      2. The land of the father of the Appellant comprised in Survey No.
166/9-A, as also the land of his brother viz. Sugandhan Sanu comprised
in Survey No. 166/1A-4 were acquired by the same Notification.
                                                                             H
168             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A           3. Possession of the lands was taken on 09.11.1981. The Land
      Acquisition Officer vide Award dated 05.04.1982 determined the
      compensation of these lands at Rs. 454 per Are for wet land, and Rs.2,137
      per Are for dry land.
            On 29.04.1982, the Appellant-landowner was paid an amount of
B     Rs.18,764.30 towards compensation.
            4. The Appellant herein filed Reference Petition bearing L.A.R.
      No. 23/97 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cherthala. Similar
      Reference Petitions were filed by the father of the Appellant being L.A.R.
      No. 25/97, and the brother of the Appellant being L.A.R. No. 22/97
C     before the Subordinate Court.
            5. The Reference Court vide judgment and order dated 14.03.2001
      passed in L.A.R. No. 25/97 filed by the Appellant’s father, enhanced the
      compensation to Rs.8,500 per Are.
             6. Subsequently, in Reference Petition being L.A.R. No. 22/97
D     filed by the brother-Sugadhan Sanu, the Court of Subordinate Judge,
      Cherthala placing reliance on the judgment dated 14.03.2001 passed in
      the father’s case, enhanced the compensation for the land of the brother
      comprising of 22.80 Ares to Rs.8,500 per Are, after deducting the amount
      which had already been paid. The Subordinate Court granted Solatium
      @ 30% of the amount awarded, and other benefits under Section 23(1A)
E
      and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as well as half of the
      costs incurred in the proceedings. The applicant was also granted Interest
      @ 12% p.a. for the period commencing from 11.05.1981 till 09.11.1981,
      and Interest @ 9% p.a. for a period of one year from 10.11.1981 to
      09.11.1982, and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of realisation
F     of the aggregate amount.
            7. In the case of the Appellant, the Reference Petition being L.A.R.
      No. 23/97 filed on his behalf was taken up for hearing on 02.08.2001.
      However, since no lawyer represented him before the Court, it was
      recorded that the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was
G     adequate, and the Reference was answered accordingly.
            8. Aggrieved by the Order dated 02.08.2001, the Appellant filed
      I.A. No. 263/2004 seeking restoration of his Reference Petition on the
      ground that his counsel could not appear on the date of hearing.
            The Reference Court dismissed the Application for restoration of
H     the Reference Petition.
       MURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYAN v. STATE OF KERALA                           169
                   [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

       9. The Appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 10902/2006 before the Kerala      A
High Court to challenge the Order of the Reference Court dated
02.08.2001, and the Order dismissing the Application for Restoration.
The High Court vide Order dated 17.10.2007 set aside the Order of the
Reference Court dated 02.08.2001, and restored L.A.R. No. 23/97 to
the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cherthala. The learned
                                                                             B
Subordinate Judge was directed to decide the matter after giving an
opportunity of hearing and liberty to adduce evidence to both the claimant
and the Government, and decide it in accordance with law.
       10. On remand, the Reference Court vide order dated 28.03.2008
once again held that the Reference Application was barred by limitation,
since it was filed beyond six months from the date of the knowledge of       C
the Collector’s Award. In these circumstances, the Court held that it
was not bound to answer the Reference, and declined to answer the
same.
       11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the present Appellant
then filed W.P. (C) No. 29939/2008 before the High Court of Kerala.          D
The High Court vide the impugned order held that in the absence of any
convincing explanation from the side of the Appellant regarding the
inordinate delay of 15 years, it would not be proper to interfere with the
reasoned order passed by the Subordinate Judge.
      12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant has filed the        E
present Appeal before this Court.
      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned judgment and the documents placed on record.
      13. From a perusal of the records, we find that the Reference          F
Court had awarded an amount of Rs. 8,500 per Are for the lands owned
by the father and brother of the Appellant under the same Notification.
The land owned by all three parties is comprised in the same Survey No.
166.
      14. The Reference Petitions in all the three cases were filed by
                                                                             G
the Appellant, his father, and his brother contemporaneously in the year
1997, to challenge the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
      The Appellant relies on Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 to submit that the Act conferred a right on persons interested
whose lands were acquired by a common Notification, to claim re-
                                                                             H
170              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     determination of the compensation in accordance with the enhanced
      compensation awarded by the Civil Court to other land owners.
             15. We find that the Reference Court has not even adverted to the
      earlier judgments passed by the same Court in L.A.R. No. 25/1997 filed
      by the father, and L.A.R. No. 22/97 filed by the brother of the Appellant,
B     wherein a uniform rate of Rs. 8,500 per Are was granted. The Reference
      Court did not hold that the delay in filing the Reference Petitions in the
      case of the father and the brother of the Appellant was a ground to deny
      them relief. The land belonging to the Appellant is similarly situated in the
      same Survey No. 166.
C             16. We see no reason why the compensation awarded in L.A.R.
      No. 22/97 and L.A.R. No. 25/97 is not granted to the present Appellant
      @ Rs.8,500 per Are for land which has been acquired under the same
      Notification dated 11.05.1981. We consider it appropriate to grant
      compensation to the Appellant @ Rs.8,500 per Are for the land owned by
      him. The Appellant is entitled to Solatium @ 30% of the amount awarded,
D     and other benefits under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land
      Acquisition Act, 1894, as well as half of the costs incurred in the
      proceedings. Appellant is further entitled to Interest at the same rate as
      awarded to the claimants in L.A.R. No. 22/97 and L.A.R. No. 25/97 filed
      at the instance of the father and brother of the appellant.
E            17. In the aforesaid terms, the Appeal is allowed with no orders as
      to costs. The judgment of the Reference Court as also that of the High
      Court are set aside.
             Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

F
      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                           Appeal allowed.




G




H