Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation for Appellant: Murali Alias Dhananjayan vs. State of Kerala (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 2, 2021
Citation: Not Available in the source.
Judges: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi.

Can a landowner be denied enhanced compensation for acquired land when his family members have received higher compensation for similarly situated land acquired under the same notification? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning land acquisition in Kerala. The Court examined whether a landowner should receive the same compensation as his family members for land acquired under the same notification, despite a delay in his reference petition. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi.

Case Background

The appellant owned 30.1 Ares of land in Cherthala North Village, Kerala, comprising 28.89 Ares of wet land and 1.21 Ares of dry land. This land was acquired by the government for the construction of the Ernakulam-Alappuzha Kayanukulam BG railway line. The acquisition was initiated through a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on May 11, 1981. The appellant’s father and brother also had their lands acquired under the same notification.

The possession of the lands was taken on November 9, 1981. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs. 454 per Are for wet land and Rs. 2,137 per Are for dry land. On April 29, 1982, the appellant was paid Rs. 18,764.30 as compensation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, his father, and his brother filed separate Reference Petitions before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cherthala, challenging the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8,500 per Are in the father’s case on March 14, 2001. Subsequently, the brother’s case also received the same enhanced compensation. However, the appellant’s Reference Petition was dismissed on August 2, 2001, due to the absence of his lawyer.

The appellant filed an application for restoration, which was also dismissed. He then challenged these orders in the Kerala High Court, which set aside the dismissal and restored the Reference Petition. However, on remand, the Reference Court again dismissed the petition, citing a delay in filing. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that there was an inordinate delay of 15 years without a convincing explanation.

Legal Framework

The appellant relied on Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 states:
“28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.—(1) 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, 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, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.”

This section allows landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification to claim re-determination of compensation if a civil court has awarded enhanced compensation to other landowners.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides a right to claim re-determination of compensation based on the enhanced compensation awarded to other landowners under the same notification.
• The appellant contended that the Reference Court had awarded Rs. 8,500 per Are to his father and brother for lands acquired under the same notification, and his land was similarly situated.
• The appellant argued that the Reference Court did not consider the judgments passed in the cases of his father and brother.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that there was an inordinate delay of 15 years in filing the Reference Petition, and there was no convincing explanation for the delay.
• The respondent contended that the Reference Court was correct in dismissing the Reference Application as barred by limitation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

• Whether the Appellant is entitled to the same enhanced compensation as his father and brother for land acquired under the same notification, despite the delay in filing his reference petition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following:

• Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This provision allows for re-determination of compensation based on enhanced awards given to other landowners under the same notification.
• Judgments in L.A.R. No. 25/1997 and L.A.R. No. 22/97: These were the cases of the appellant’s father and brother, where the same Reference Court had awarded a uniform rate of Rs. 8,500 per Are.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The Court applied this section to justify the appellant’s claim for re-determination of compensation.
• L.A.R. No. 25/1997 and L.A.R. No. 22/97: The Court relied on these cases to establish the uniform rate of compensation of Rs. 8,500 per Are, which should also be granted to the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the principle of equal treatment and the fact that the appellant’s land was similarly situated and acquired under the same notification as his father and brother. The Court emphasized that the Reference Court had not provided any valid reason to deny the appellant the same compensation that was awarded to his family members. The Court also noted that the Reference Court had not considered the earlier judgements passed in the cases of the appellant’s father and brother.

The Court’s reasoning was as follows:

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the facts and legal provisions clearly favored the appellant’s claim. The Court found no justification for the Reference Court’s decision to deny the appellant the same compensation as his family members.

The Court stated: “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.”

The Court further added: “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.”

The Court also stated: “The land belonging to the Appellant is similarly situated in the same Survey No. 166.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notification are entitled to the same compensation, especially when similarly situated.
• Delay in filing a reference petition should not be a ground to deny enhanced compensation if other landowners under the same notification have received it.
• Courts must consider previous judgments passed by the same court in similar cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be granted compensation at Rs. 8,500 per Are, along with solatium, other benefits under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and interest at the same rate as awarded to the claimants in L.A.R. No. 22/97 and L.A.R. No. 25/97. The Court also set aside the judgments of the Reference Court and the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notification are entitled to the same compensation, especially when similarly situated, and that delay in filing a reference petition should not be a ground to deny enhanced compensation if other landowners under the same notification have received it. This decision reinforces the principle of equal treatment in land acquisition cases and clarifies that the courts must consider previous judgments passed by the same court in similar cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Reference Court and the High Court. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to the same enhanced compensation as his father and brother, along with solatium, interest, and other benefits. This judgment emphasizes the principle of equal treatment in land acquisition cases and ensures that landowners are not denied fair compensation due to procedural delays.

Category

Parent Category: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Child Categories:

• Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Section 28, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Section 28A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Compensation
• Reference Petition
• Equal Treatment

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether a landowner should receive the same enhanced compensation as his family members for land acquired under the same notification, despite a delay in his reference petition.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the landowner was entitled to the same enhanced compensation as his family members, along with other benefits, even though there was a delay in filing his reference petition.

Q: What is Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
A: Section 28(A) allows landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification to claim re-determination of compensation if a civil court has awarded enhanced compensation to other landowners.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle of equal treatment in land acquisition cases and ensures that landowners are not denied fair compensation due to procedural delays.

Q: What does this mean for landowners whose land is acquired?
A: It means that landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notification are entitled to the same compensation, especially when similarly situated, and that delay in filing a reference petition should not be a ground to deny enhanced compensation if other landowners under the same notification have received it.