The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of S.11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the legislative intention to prevent delays and relieve landowners from oppressive proceedings.

Mathews P. Mathew, J.

An internting question, as to the effect of S.11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, arises in these appeals. Both the appeals are filed against the judgment in O.P.No.9913 of 1986. W.A.No.878of 1992 is filed by the State as well as the Sub Collector and the Secretary to the Board of Revenue, whereas W.A.No.944 of 1992 is filed on behalf of the Panchayat, at whose instance the land involved in the case was sought to be acquired.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows: 0.41.84 hectare of land belonging to the first respondent in these appeals (petitioner in the original petition), who is hereinafter referred to as the land owner, was sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishing a mini industrial unit in Kanakkary Panchayat. There is a building in the property. According to the landowner, it was constructed prior to the issuance of the notification under S, 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1962 on 12-4-1977. On the other hand, according to the land acquisition authorities, the building was constructed after the said date and, therefore, not liable to be compensated for. The second appellant in the writ appeal (W.A.No.878 of 1992), functioning as Collector under the Act, passed an award granting compensation only for the value of the land without awarding any amount for the building thereon. Thereupon, the landowner filed O.P.No. 2689 of 1979 challenging the award in as much as compensation was refused for the building. The said original petition was disposed of by judgment dated 28-10-1981, copy of which is marked as Ext.P1 in O.P.No. 9913 of 1986. a reading of Ext. P1 shows that the case was contested very hotly. It was contended on behalf of the State and the acquisition authorities that the landowner had not approached the Court with clean hands. It was further contended that the fact that the land owner had failed to say anything at all about the building in his representation made pursuant to S.3(1) notification, is clearly indicative of the fact that the building did not exist on the date of S.3(1) notification.

3. After adverting to the rival contentions in this regard, this Court came to the conclusion that the Collector did not apply his mind in considering the objections raised by the landowner under S.9 regarding the existence of the building, as claimed by the land owner, prior to the issuance of S.3(1) notification. This Court also came to the conclusion that the Collector did not value the building and other improvements and he failed to say in the award or in any other order that they were not valued and why they were not valued. On finding that I he Collector failed to pass a speaking order in disposing of the objections raised by the landowner pursuant to the notice under S.9, this Court held that the award was not made in compliance with the statutory provisions. Allowing the original petition by Ext.P1 judgment, this Court observed as follows:

"In the ordinary circumstances, I would be most reluctant to allow an amendment of this nature on the date of the hearing. But the files placed before me clearly show the injustice that could result from an award which was made otherwise than in accordance with the Act. If the building was in fact constructed prior to the date of the notification under S.3, as the petitioner now tells me, not to value that building before acquisition is nothing short of injustice. It is a valuable building and a precious property to a person in the position of the petitioner who is only a schoolteacher. The value stated by him is Rs.40, 000/- which is, for a schoolteacher, a precious sum of money. Whether the value is correctly stated and whether the building was constructed prior to the notification under S.3 are matters on which I express no view. These matters have to be investigated. If the petitioner is right in saying what he says, he is entitled to the value of the building in addition to the