AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2006 in L.A.R. No. 20 of 2004 of the Sub Court, Koyilandy. That was a reference under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, "the Act"). The learned Sub Judge ordered that since the appellants have not produced relevant documents, they are not entitled to the compensation deposited in the reference Court. The appellants say that 0.0060 hectors belonging to them was acquired for construction of approach road to Alenakadavu bridge. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "the LAO") assessed land value payable at Rs. 11,977/- but, did not award the same to the appellants for the reason of non production of title deeds. The LAO made reference under Sec. 30 of the Act.
The learned counsel for the appellants contend that sufficient evidence was produced to show that the acquired land belonged to the appellants. The learned counsel submits that originally the suit property belonged to the mother who by Ext.A1, deed No. 1124 of 1976 settled the properties including the acquired property in favour of the appellants who are paying revenue for the said property as revealed by Ext.A2, receipt dated 15.01.2004. Ext.A3 is the certificate of possession issued by the Village Officer on 18.11.2004. The first appellant gave evidence as AW1. The learned Sub Judge found that the discrepancy in the survey number is not explained.
The learned counsel for the appellants has given me a copy of award (which was not produced by either side in the reference court) where, in page 7 property acquired in survey 37/8 is shown as coming in resurvey numbers 37/19 and 37/21. It is further noted by the LAO that the sub division records and extent shown in Sec. 4(1) notification are that prior to the survey and sub division work and that resurvey number and extent shown in the DD are after survey and scrutiny of SD records by the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records, Kozhikode. In page 26 of the award the LAO states, concerning the 0.0060 hectors which is stated to be in the possession of the first appellant that it is comprised in R.S. No. 37/21.
I have heard learned Government Pleader also.
It is true that in Ext.A1, survey number of the property is described as 37/8 but on reading relevant pages of the award which I have stated above it is clear that resurvey number of old survey 37/8 is 37/21.
I must also notice that as regards the land in question and acquired by the Government, the LAO has given notice only to the first appellant and reference was made showing the appellants as claimants. It means that to the LAO it did not appear that any other person is entitled to claim land value in respect of the 0.0060 hectors in survey 37/8 (resurvey 37/21). These circumstances persuaded me to hold that the appellants are the owners in possession of the acquired land comprised in survey 37/8 (resurvey number 37/21). Hence the appellants are entitled to get compensation. Needless to say that the appellants are also entitled to get statutory benefits available to them, admissible under Sec. 23 of the Act and as are legally available to them.
Resultantly this appeal is allowed as under:
(i) Judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Koyilandy in L.A.R. No. 20 of 2004 are set aside.
(ii) Reference is answered to the effect that the appellants are entitled to claim compensation assessed by the LAO with respect to the 0.0060 hectors in Sy. No. 37/8 (re-survey 37/21) acquired for construction of approach road to Alenakadavu bridge.
(iii) The appellants will get all statutory benefits as are available to them under Sec. 23 of the Act.
(iv) It is directed that the appellants shall not be entitled to get interest for 306 days in view of the order on C.M.A. No. 1903 of 2007.