Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/7TH PHALGUNA, 1936 LA.App..No. 472 of 2013 (C)
----------------------------
(LAR.NO. 1/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 27-02-2013)
-----------------------
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANT NOS.10,8,9,16,24,29,33,35,36,41 TO 46 & 48 TO 50:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. R.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, HARISREE, CHENGANNOOR KARA, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE.
2. JOSEPH RAJU, ELANJIKKAL, EDAVILANGU KARA, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK.
3. LINCY RAJU, W/O.JOSEPH RAJU, ELANJIKKAL, EDAVILANGU KARA, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK.
4. M.T. RATNAMMA,W/O.T.M.JAYAPRAKASH, MANAKKAL HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGON.P.O., THIRUVALLA- 689 102.
5. GEORGE ABRAHAM, 29/2723, PALAMATTOM, PRASANTHY LANE, POONITHURA.P.O.
6. UDAYABHANU BHASKAR & REMA UDAYABHASKAR, FLAT NO.2, GRACE APARTMENTS, AISWARYA NAGAR, THEVARA.P.O., KONTHURUTHY, KOCHI-30.
7. SOBHA MOHAN, C/O.M.MOHAN, SAYUJYA, PRASANTHI NAGAR, EDAPPALLY.P.O., KOCHI.
8. DILEEP JACOB, H.NO.3/11, KANYAR VILLA, (P) WARD, GORAZVASI TALUK, MALAD DESOM, BOMBAY. 9. GRACE JACOB,PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KALLARVATTAM COLONY, NEDUMKANDAM, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK.
sts 2/-
10. GANAPATHY NAMBOODIRI, MADASSERRY HOUSE, VIYYOOR.P.O., THRISSUR.
11. VIJAYARAJAN.K.R., HOUSE NO.KRRA-104, KANDALAKKADU ROAD, MARADU.P.O., ERNAKULAM.
12. M.N.AGNISARMAN NAMBOODIRI, MADASSERRY HOUSE, VIYYOOR.P.O., THRISSUR.
13. V.K.THANKAPPAN, FLAT NO.3, SEETHAL APARTMENTS, THRISSUR.
14. ALPHONSA MATHEW, NO.70, 6TH CROSS, MALLAPPA LAY OUT, BABUSAPPALAYA, BANGALORE.
15. LIFFIN JOSEPH, KAINIKKATTU HOUSE, KOCHUPARAMBIL, MUNDAMVELI.P.O., KOCHI.
16. P.J.NAMBOODIRI, AVANI, MEENCHANDA RAILWAY GATE, KOZHIKODE.
17. PENNY COREA, L-5/10, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI.
18. AZHAKATHU SASTHRASARAMAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.ASHTAMOORTHY NAMBOODIRIPAD, KAILAS, PATTAMBI,PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN JOSEPH SMT.THANUJA ROSHAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2 & CLAIMANTS 19 & 20 IN LAR:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD. 3. P.J.ANTONY, CHOOLACKAL HOUSE, H.NO.27/67, CHAKKALAKKAL CROSS ROAD, PERUMANOOR.
3/-
44. YAMUNA ANTONY, W/O.P.J.ANTONY, CHOOLACKAL HOUSE, H.NO.27/67, CHAKKALAKKAL CROSS ROAD, PERUMANOOR.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2014 , ALONG WITH LAA.NO. 356/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 26-02-2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
P.V. ASHA, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.Nos.472, 333, 441, 356, 470, 474, 477, 499, 504, 505, 506, 513, 536, 538, 555, 582, 610, 639, 645, 646, 647 and 680 of 2013 and
772 and 839 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2015

Advocates:
Sri.JOHN JOSEPH, SMT.THANUJA ROSHAN GEORGE, SMT. ROSE MICHAEL, SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED, SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR

Only those with registered titles have the legal entitlement to compensation under land acquisition proceedings, and claims for common areas must be substantiated by clear legal doctrines.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Appeals arising from References under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act - Section 31(2), Kerala Apartment Ownership Act - The court interpreted the compensation entitlements of claimants based on their established titles and the principles of common area rights without vested interests in amenities.
Fact of the Case:

The appeals arose from a Land Acquisition Reference concerning several claimants seeking compensation for land acquired by the State for a township project. The main contention was around the rightful shares of compensation amidst allegations of fraudulent transfers and claims over common amenities.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the claimants were primarily entitled to compensation only for the areas covered by their title deeds. Claims for proportional rights in common areas or amenities were rejected due to lack of legal basis. It emphasized strict adherence to established property laws.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of claims for compensation based on title, allegations of fraudulent transfers, and the right to compensation for common areas. The applicability of Consumer Commission orders and the findings of title were also contentious points.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that titles and registered deeds define entitlement to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. It also affirmed the importance of formal title documentation over verbal claims, particularly regarding common property rights and amenities.
Final Decision: The court upheld the reference court’s decision on compensation, allowing appeals for compensation only based on valid titles, and ordered remittance for reconsideration regarding certain agreement holders.

JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

All these appeals arise from a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”). L.A.A. Nos.472, 333 and 441 of 2013 arise from the judgment and decree in LAR No.1/2011 of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor. The same are treated as the main cases and arguments have been heard accordingly. We have heard the appeals together and therefore they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The property acquired in LAR No.1/2011 is having an extent of 1.6960 hectares of land comprised in Sy. No.381/4 of Kunnathunadu Village. The total compensation as per the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, is Rs.3,69,05,908/- which was deposited under Section 31(2) of the Act.

3. In L.A.A. No.333/2013, the appellant is the 17^th claimant before the reference court, in L.A.A. No.441/2013 the appellants are claimants 19 and 20 and in LAA No.472/2013 the appellants are 17 in number who are respectively, claimants 10, 8, 9, 16, 24, 29, 33, 35, 36, 41 to 46 and 48 to 50.

4. The above Land Acquisition Reference was tried along with 28 other reference cases and separate judgments have been rendered. The reference court in the operative portion, has given the split up details as per which each of the claimants have been awarded amounts.

5. The legal issues raised being common, we have heard the appeals together. Learned counsel Shri John Joseph appeared for the appellants in LAA No.472/2013, Shri Varghese Kuriakose appeared for the appellant in LAA No.333/2013, Shri T.R.S. Kumar appeared for the appellants in LAA No.441/2013, Shri K.A. Abdul Salam appeared for the requisitioning authority and Shri Rose Michael, learned Government Pleader appeared for the State and Shri Thomas Geevarghese P. appeared for the contesting respondents. In the connected appeals also, Shri John Joseph, learned counsel led arguments for the appellants. Shri Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Varghese Kuriakose, Shri Babu Cherukara and other learned counsel appeared for the respondents and the learned counsel for the requisitioning authority, Shri K.A. Abdul Salam was also heard.

6. First we will come to the contentions raised in LAA No.472/2013. The land involved which was acquired by the State for Info Park belonged to a township project, the promoter of which was a joint stock company, known as Suryanelli Plantations Pvt. Ltd.. They purchased large area of about 50 acres of wet land in Kunnathunadu and Puthencruz villages in Ernakulam District. Pursuant to the advertisements issued by the company in newspapers large number of applicants applied for house plots which were of the size of 3 cents per unit. An applicant can acquire more than one unit also. The brochures published by the company have been marked as Exts.J6 and J7. It is the case of the appellants in LAA No.472/2013 that the prospective buyers paid amounts in advance for which the company issued acknowledgment receipts. They executed agreements for sale. Majority of them were given sale deeds also except claimants 41 to 51. As far as the house project is concerned, they had offered common amenities like roads, parks, play ground, swimming pool, etc. After developing the plots, the purchasers had to construct the flats also going by the agreement.

7. When delay occurred in the matter and according to them, as the company was not responding to the requests made by the buyers, they formed an association, viz. Suryanelli Sundale Township Investors Society, Reg. No.ER 477 and took steps in the matter. Some of the members of the association approached the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Ext.J12 is the order passed by the Commission dated 19.12.2000. The Commission took the view that the price received by the promoter company included the price of the house plot allotted to the buyers as well as contribution of the buyers towards expenses for developing the township project. Certain dir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document