- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State v. Ramakrishna Pillai
Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was instituted by the State against an order of the learned Additional District Judge of Trivandrum in a land acquisition reference. The reference concerned a plot of 23 cents of land belonging to the respondent which had been compulsorily acquired by the State for the purpose of improving the aerodrome at Sankumukhom Beach, Trivandrum. The district judge had enhanced the compensation awarded by the land acquisition authorities. The State, through the learned Government Pleader, objected to that enhancement on the ground that the landowner (the respondent) had not made a claim pursuant to the notice issued under s. 9(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (Act XI of 1089, Travancore), and therefore the judge could not lawfully award an enhanced amount.
Before the district court the objection based on non-compliance with s. 9(2) was raised at the time of arguments after the evidence had concluded. The district judge overruled the objection, reasoning that because the Government Pleader had not raised the point in written objections filed earlier, the respondent had not been afforded an opportunity to explain the omission and should not be denied relief on the merits. The State appealed that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the statutory scheme (in particular s. 24 of the local Act, corresponding to s. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894), a claimant's omission or refusal to make a claim in answer to a notice under s. 9(2) prevents the court in a reference from awarding compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the division peishkar unless the claimant shows "sufficient reason" for the omission.
- Whether the district court was correct to refuse to entertain the State's objection (raised late, at arguments) without inquiring into whether the respondent had "sufficient reason" for failing to make a claim under s. 9(2).
- Whether the circumstances of the proceedings before the division peishkar (including an application for adjournment by the respondent and the absence of any recorded order on that application) constitute "sufficient reason" within the meaning of the statutory provision to permit the district court to consider enhanced compensation on the merits.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (State / Government Pleader)
- Main contention: The respondent failed to make any claim pursuant to the notice under s. 9(2); under s. 24(2) the court is precluded from awarding a sum exceeding the division peishkar's award unless the claimant shows sufficient reason for the omission. Therefore, the district court should not have enhanced the compensation.
- Concession recorded before the appellate court: No question of the district court's jurisdiction to enhance compensation was involved.
Respondent (Landowner)
- Position as reflected in the district court: The objection based on failure to claim under s. 9(2) was not raised in written objections earlier, so the respondent had no opportunity to explain the omission; it would be unjust to refuse relief on that basis and the respondent was entitled to have the enhancement considered on the merits.
- The respondent filed an application for two weeks' adjournment before the division peishkar to produce papers and submit his claim; there is no order on that adjournment application in the record forwarded to the district court.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| The Secretary of State for India v. Gobind Lal Bysak (1908) xii Calcutta Weekly Notes 263 | Cited as one of the decided cases supporting the construction that omission to make a claim under s. 9(2) (without sufficient reason) bars the claimant from obtaining in the reference a sum greater than that awarded by the collector/division peishkar. | The appellate court cited this decision as part of the body of authority supporting the mandatory effect of the statutory provision restricting enhancement absent sufficient cause. |
| The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Bishan Dat (1911) I.L.R. XXXIII Allahabad 377 | Same general principle: supports the mandatory construction that omission without sufficient cause operates as a bar to an enhanced award in the reference. | Relied upon by the court as part of consistent authority construing s. 9(2) and the corresponding rule limiting the court's award when the claimant omitted to make a claim. |
| Narain Dat v. The Superintendent of Dehra Dun (1915) I.L.R. XXXVIII Allahabad 69 | Same general principle: omission to make a claim without sufficient reason bars enhancement in the reference. | Listed as supporting authority for the mandatory operation of the provision. |
| Ram Prasad v. The Collector of Alligarh (1917) xi Indian Cases 274 | Same general principle: supports the construction that omission without sufficient cause prevents the court awarding more than the peishkar/collector. | Included in the array of cases relied upon to demonstrate consistent judicial construction. |
| Birbal v. Collector of Moradabad A.I.R. 1927 Allahabad 183 | Allahabad High Court followed earlier decisions to the same effect: refusal or omission to comply with s. 9(2) without sufficient cause operates as an absolute bar to getting a greater sum than the collector's award. | Cited as further confirmation of the line of authority interpreting the statutory provisions. |
| Orient Bank of India Ltd. v. Secretary of State (1926) I.L.R. VII Lahore 416 | Held (as noted in the opinion) that the claim in answer to notice under s. 9(2) should be a specific claim — i.e., state in rupees the value the claimant places upon the property. | Referred to by the court to show that some decisions require a specific rupee claim in response to s. 9(2). |
| Subbanna v. District Labour Officer (1930) Madras Weekly Notes 373 | Also cited as authority for the proposition that the claim should be specific in amount (in rupees) when made in answer to the notice under s. 9(2). | Used to illustrate a strand of decisions that require specificity of the claim under the notice procedure. |
| Secretary of State v. Dinshaw A.I.R. 1933 Sind 21 | Cited for the proposition that it is open to a court to consider whether there was "sufficient cause" for a claimant's failure to make the claim under the notice provisions. | The appellate court relied on this authority in concluding that it may enquire into whether the respondent had sufficient reason for not making the claim and therefore remit the matter for that inquiry. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The appellate court proceeded in the following analytic steps, as set out in the opinion:
- Statutory framework: The court examined the relevant statutory provision (quoted in the opinion as s. 24, corresponding to s. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894) which prescribes rules as to the amount of compensation in the event of a reference. The court emphasized the mandatory language of sub-section (2): when the applicant has refused or omitted without sufficient reason to make a claim under s. 9(2), the amount awarded by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the division peishkar.
- Interpretation and burden: The court concluded that the provision is penal in effect (it prescribes a penalty for omission) and that the party seeking to escape the penal consequence (i.e., a claimant who failed to make the claim) must move the court to allow the claim by showing "sufficient reason." The court held that the wording admits no other construction.
- Precedent support: The court observed that several decided cases support the mandatory construction, and cited multiple authorities which it treated as consistent with this interpretation. It also identified a strand of cases requiring a specific rupee claim in response to the s. 9(2) notice.
- Application to the record facts: The appellate court examined the sequence of the land acquisition proceedings: the declaration under s. 6 and notification under s. 9, the service of the s. 9(2) notice (served on the respondent on 19th edavom) directing him to appear on 20th edavom, and the respondent's application on the appointed day for two weeks' time to produce papers and make his claim. That adjournment application is in the papers forwarded to the district court, but no order allowing or disallowing it appears in the record. The enquiry by the division peishkar proceeded ex parte and the award was passed on 31.12.1121; the respondent subsequently moved under s. 18 for a reference to the district court.
- Assessment of "sufficient reason": Given these facts, the appellate court found it open to consider whether the respondent had "sufficient reason" for his failure to put forward a claim. The court noted that it could not be said to be unreasonable for the respondent to apply for a two-week adjournment given the late service of the notice, and that the absence of any recorded order by the division peishkar on the adjournment application likely left the respondent ignorant of subsequent proceedings until he received notice of the award. The court considered that these circumstances might constitute "sufficient reason" within the meaning of the statute.
- Procedure and fairness: The court criticized the lower court for failing to apply its mind to the question of sufficient reason and for overruling the State's objection without inquiring into that question. The appellate court observed that the division peishkar had not pointed out the omission in his order of reference and the Government Pleader had not raised it in written objections before the lower court, and that refusing an enquiry into sufficient reason might produce injustice to the respondent. The court therefore found it inappropriate to simply affirm the lower court's decision without further inquiry.
- Remedial disposition: In light of the foregoing, the appellate court determined that the proper course was to set aside the district court's decision and remit the case for an enquiry confined to determining whether, in the circumstances, the respondent had sufficient reason for failing to file a claim under s. 9(2) and whether a plea of waiver is available in reply to the late-stage objection.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The appellate court ALLOWED the appeal, set aside the decision of the lower court, and remitted the case for a fresh decision limited to the questions indicated in the order.
Direct consequences and practical implications:
- The case is remitted to the lower court for an enquiry specifically into whether the respondent had "sufficient reason" for failing to make a claim under s. 9(2), and whether a plea of waiver is available to the respondent in reply to the objection raised by the State.
- The further enquiry is to be confined to the points remitted by the appellate court and is not to be extended to a general rehearing on the question of enhancement beyond the limits of that enquiry. The lower court will pass a fresh judgment regarding the excess compensation claimed based on the existing materials and in the light of its decision on the points remitted.
- The respondent's memorandum of cross-objection seeking further enhancement does not arise for consideration in view of the appellate decision; court-fees paid on both the memorandum of appeal and memorandum of cross-objection are to be refunded to the respective parties.
- The opinion applies existing authorities to interpret the statutory provisions but does not purport to lay down a novel legal principle or to overrule prior cases; accordingly, no new precedent beyond the application of established principles is claimed in the text of the opinion.
Order: Appeal allowed; lower court decision set aside; matter remitted for limited enquiry; cross-objection not considered; court-fees refunded.
1. This is an appeal by the state against a decision of the learned additional district judge of trivandrum on a land acquisition reference by which the learned judge enhanced the value awarded by the land acquisition authorities for a plot of 23 cents of land which belonged to the respondent, And which was compulsorily acquired by the state for the purpose of improving the aerodrome at the sankumukhom beach, Trivandrum. The main point raised by the learned government pleader was that inasmuch as the land owner, That is, The respondent had not made any claim as enjoined by s. 9 (2) of the land acquisition act (act xi of 1089, Travancore) pursuant to the notice issued to him thereunder, It was not competent for the learned judge to enhance the value awarded by the land acquisition authorities. This objection was raised before the learned judge only at the time the case came up for arguments after the conclusion of the evidence and the learned judge repelled it on the ground that as it was not raised by the government pleader in the written objections filed by him in court in answer to the claim for enhanced compensation, The respondent got no opportunity to explain his omission to make a claim and that the court will not, Therefore, Be justified in refusing the relief which the land owner was entitled to on the merits of his claim. S. 24 (which corresponds to s. 25 of the land acquisition act, I of 1894) contains the 'rules as to amount of compensation' and that section is in the following terms:
" (1) when the applicant has made a claim to compensation pursuant to any notice given under s. 9, The amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the division peishkar under s. 11.
(2) when the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the court) to make such claim, The amount awarded to him by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the division peishkar.
(3) when the applicant has omitted for sufficient reason (to be allowed by the court) to make such claim, The amount awarded to him by the court shall not be less than, And may exceed, The amount awarded by the division peishkar".
2. Sub - s. 2 makes it clear that in a case where the claimant omitted to put forward his claim under s. 9 (2) the amount awarded by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the division peishkar unless the court finds that there was sufficient reason for the failure. The learned judge below has not chosen to apply his mind to the question whether there was sufficient reason for the respondent's omission to make the necessary claim and would seem to have proceeded on the ground that the government pleader was not entitled to raise the objection at that late stage.
3. The provisions of the section quoted above are mandatory. It prescribes a penalty for the omission unless it is properly accounted for and on the language of the section it is the party who wants to be exempted from the penal consequences prescribed by it that should move the court to permit him to make the claim for enhanced compensation. The wording of the section would seem to us to admit of no other construction. Decided cases support this view. The secretary of state for india v. Gobind lal bysak (1908) xii calcutta weekly notes 263; the secretary of state for india in council v. Bishan dat (1911) i. L. R. Xxxiii allahabad 377; narain dat v. The superintendent of dehra dun (1915) i. L. R. Xxxviii allahabad 69; ram prasad v. The collector of alligarh (1917) xi indian cases 274. In birbal v. Collector of moradabad a. I. R. 1927 allahabad 183 the allahabad high court followed the two earlier decisions of that court mentioned above. Certain other cases go further and hold that the claim in answer to the notice under s. 9 (2) should be a specific claim, A claim which states in rupees the value the claimant places upon his property. Orient bank of india ltd. V. Secretary of state (1926) i. L. R. Vii lahore 416 and subbanna v. District labour officer (1930) madras weekly notes 373.
4. The earliest allahabad case cited above explains the rules embodied in the two relevant sections as follows:
in our opinion it was intended by cl. (2) of s. 9 that the owner of property about to be acquired should appear and state his claim in the manner provided by the clause so as to enable the acquisition officer to make a fair, Proper and reasonable award based upon a proper inquiry after the proper means have been placed before him for holding such inquiry. S. 25, Cl. (2), Makes the refusal or omission to comply with the provisions of s. 9, Cl. (2) without sufficient cause an absolute bar to the applicant in the reference obtaining a greater sum than that awarded by the collector".
5. If we may say so with respect, This construction commends itself to us as conveying the true import of the combined effect of the two sections and is seen accepted in practically all the subsequent decisions bearing on the point. After explaining the meaning of the provisions thus, The learned judges in that case referred to the fact that the failure to make the claim was not sought to be made a point before the district court and that the respondent suggested that the point was waived, They went on to consider the appeal on the merits and found that the enhancement made by the district court was not warranted. In the case in hand the objection was raised before the district court, But that court overruled it without adverting to the question of "sufficient cause". Nor did the court in so many words say that the point was waived.
6. It is, However, Open to us to consider whether there was "sufficient cause" for the respondent for not putting forward his claim in answer to the notice under s. 9 (2). Secretary of state v. Dinshaw a. I. R. 1933 sind 21. In the present case the declaration under s. 6 was published in the government gazette dated 13. 8. 1121 and the notification under s. 9 was published in the gazette dated 20. 8. 1121. The notice under s. 9 (2) was issued on 9. 10. 1121 asking the respondent to file his claim before the division peishkar on the 20th of that month and that was served on him on the 19th. On the appointed day he filed an application for two weeks' time to produce the necessary papers and to submit his claim. That application is among the papers forwarded to the district court by the division peishkar along with his order of reference, But no order is seen made on it allowing or disallowing the prayer for adjournment. That the further enquiry by the division peishkar was conducted exparte is seen from the award he passed in the case on 31. 12. 1121. We do not know as to what date the enquiry was adjourned from 20. 10. 1121 and whether the respondent was given notice of the adjournment. S. 11 authorises the division peishkar to adjourn the enquiry from time to time. Among the other records forwarded to the district court are seen the valuation statements of p. W. D. And revenue officers and a deposition of the special land acquisition proverthicar. His examination was on 6. 12. 1121, But the award was passed only on 31. 12. 1121. Notice of the award was given to the respondent and he then moved under s. 18 for a reference to the district court.
7. The course the proceedings before the land acquisition authorities took between the date of the respondent's application for adjournment (20. 10. 1121) and the date of the award (31. 12. 1121) has an important bearing on the question whether the respondent had sufficient reason for his failure to make a claim as required by s. 9 (2). The notice under the section having been served on him only on 19th edavom, It cannot be said that he acted unreasonably in applying for adjournment of the enquiry for 2 weeks from 20th edavom. So far as we can gather from the records before us the effect of the division peishkar's failure to pass any order on the respondent's adjournment application was to keep the latter ignorant of the subsequent proceedings until he got notice of the passing of the award. It then arises whether that circumstance would constitute sufficient reason within the meaning of s. 24 (2) to exempt the respondent from the penal consequences of the failure to put forward any claim before the division peishkar. The latter did not point out the omission to the district court in his order of reference nor did the government pleader raise the omission as a ground in the objections he filed in the case. In the circumstances, To refuse an enquiry as to whether there was sufficient reason for the failure to make the claim in answer to the notice under s. 9 (2) might in all probability result in injustice being done to the respondent. To repel the objection as the court below did would be to ignore a mandatory provision in the land acquisition act. The proper course for us would therefore seem to be to set aside the decision of the lower court and remit the case back for an enquiry as to whether in the circumstances of the case the respondent was entitled to have his claim for excess compensation considered on the merits, Notwithstanding his failure to file a claim under s. 9 (2). The lower court will also consider whether a plea of waiver is available to the respondent by way of reply to the objection raised at the late stage. The learned government pleader conceded before us that no question of jurisdiction of the district court to enhance the compensation awarded by the division peishkar was involved in the case. It is true the respondent did not seek to show there was sufficient reason for his failure to comply with the requirements of s. 9 (2), But in our opinion an enquiry into that question is necessary in the interests of justice.
8. In the result we allow the appeal, Set aside the lower court's decision and remit the case back for fresh decision in the light of this order. The further enquiry will be confined to the questions raised by this order and not extended to the question of enhancement of compensation. The lower court will pass a fresh judgment regarding the excess compensation claimed based on the existing materials and in the light of its decision on the points remitted to it for consideration.
9. The respondent has preferred a memorandum of cross objection claiming further enhancement of compensation. In view of our decision in the appeal that memorandum does not arise for consideration. The court - fees paid on the memorandum of appeal and the memorandum of cross objection will be refunded to the respective parties. Order accordingly.
allowed.
Alert