Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
GOPIKA D KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SANTHAMMA – Respondent
LA.APP. NO. 97 OF 2024 | LAR NO.38 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ANIL PRASAD, C.N.SREEKUMAR, MANJU PAUL, SABU P.JOSEPH, K.S.MUHAMMED, SHEFIN BEYON T. VARGHESE
For the Respondents: GIRISH KUMAR, M S AKASH S., RICHU THERESA ROBERT, SMT.REKHA C NAIR
An appeal under Section 74 of the Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable against awards made under Section 76; hence, court fees are refundable in such cases.
Headnote:The appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act was filed against the Reference Court's finding regarding compensation apportionment. The court concluded that Section 74 appeals are only maintainable against awards under Section 69, rendering this appeal not maintainable. The court ruled the appellants are entitled to a refund of court fees in cases of rejection due to non-maintainability.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed by claimants regarding compensation apportionment. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on maintainability of the appeal and court fee refund. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court holds the appeal not maintainable; orders refund of court fees. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
1. This Land Acquisition Appeal is filed by claimants 1 to 3 in L.A.R. No. 38/2019 of the District Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The Reference was under Section 76 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for apportionment of the compensation deposited in the Court. The Reference Court found that the claimants Nos.4 to 6 are entitled for the deposited amount. Challenging the said judgment of the Reference Court, the present Appeal is filed under Section 74 of Act.
2. When this matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the contesting party respondents 1 to 3 /
claimants 4 to 6, Sri.Girish Kumar pointed out that Section 74 does not provide appeal against the award passed under Section 76 of the Act and that it provides appeal only against the award under Section 69 of the Act. In view of the said contention, the appellants have filed I.A. No. 3/2025 praying refund of Court Fee on rejection of the appeal, since the appeal is not maintainable under of the Act. The said prayer of the appellants was strongly opposed by the counsel for the contesting respondents, contending that as per Section 66 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, there is no provision to refund the Court Fee when an appeal is rejected.
3. On going through Section 66 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, it is seen that Section
66 does not deal with rejection of appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Beyon.T.Varghese cited the decision of this Court inThomas and Others v. Dr. Sudha and others 2010 (4) KHC 575, in which it is held that Court Fee is refundable when second appeal is rejected as not maintainable. The learned counsel further cited the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Joginder Singh v. Sant Kaur 1999 0 Supreme(P&H)153, in which it is held that when the Regular First Appeal is found maintainable, the appellant is entitled to get refund of the entire Court Fee.
4. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court as well as the Punjab & Haryana High Court, I find that the appellant is entitled to get refund of Court Fee, when the appeal is rejected as not maintainable.
5. It is found that under Section 74 of the Act, the appeal is maintainable only against an award under Section 69, the impugned award was passed under Section 76 of the Act. In view of this fact, this appeal is rejected as not maintainable and the Registry is directed to refund the entire Court Fee paid on this appeal back to the appellants.
