TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Kerala HC quashes rejection of compensation re-determination applications under Section 28A Land Acquisition Act 1894</h1> <h3>Thankamma Mathew Versus State of Kerala and Ors.</h3> Thankamma Mathew Versus State of Kerala and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 based on an award by a Lok Adalat.2. Applicability of Section 28A to awards passed by Lok Adalats.3. Interpretation of 'award of the Court' under Section 28A.4. Legal status and enforceability of Lok Adalat awards.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Re-determination of Compensation under Section 28A Based on Lok Adalat Award:The primary issue was whether a claimant can seek re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on an award from a Lok Adalat. The petitioners argued that since the Lok Adalat's award is deemed a decree of a civil court, it should serve as a basis for re-determination of compensation. The court examined the provisions of Section 28A, which allows re-determination if a court awards compensation exceeding that awarded by the Collector. The petitioners had submitted their applications within the statutory period, satisfying Section 28A's requirements.2. Applicability of Section 28A to Awards Passed by Lok Adalats:The respondents contended that Section 28A applies only to court judgments, not to Lok Adalat awards, which are based on mutual agreements. They argued that Lok Adalat awards are deemed decrees only for execution purposes, not for compensation re-determination. However, the court analyzed Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, which states that Lok Adalat awards are deemed decrees of civil courts and are final and binding. This interpretation aligns with the objective of Section 28A, ensuring fair compensation for all landowners, regardless of whether they sought court references under Section 18.3. Interpretation of 'Award of the Court' Under Section 28A:The court explored whether an award by a Lok Adalat qualifies as an 'award of the court' under Section 28A. It referred to the Legal Services Authorities Act, which defines 'court' broadly, including civil, criminal, and revenue courts, tribunals, and other authorities with judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Section 22 of the Act grants Lok Adalats the same powers as civil courts, reinforcing that their awards are equivalent to court decrees. The Supreme Court's rulings in Thomas v. Thomas Job and Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji affirmed that Lok Adalat awards are decrees of civil courts, executable as such.4. Legal Status and Enforceability of Lok Adalat Awards:The court emphasized that Lok Adalat awards, once issued, are final, binding, and enforceable as civil court decrees. The Supreme Court's judgments clarified that awards from Lok Adalats, even in criminal cases, are treated as civil court decrees. This interpretation supports the petitioners' claim for re-determination of compensation based on the Lok Adalat award. The court concluded that denying re-determination would result in arbitrary and unequal compensation for similar lands, which is unsustainable.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned orders and directing the Special Tahsildar to reconsider the petitioners' applications for re-determination of compensation based on the Lok Adalat award. The judgment underscores the legal equivalence of Lok Adalat awards to civil court decrees, ensuring fair compensation for all affected landowners.
TaxTMI 