The revision petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased declarant late K.V. Abraham, who had surrendered 226.93.500 Acres of land under Section 85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 23-12-2009 passed in LB(E)9-14067/00 on the files of the Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram. After the surrender of the land, since the compensation as provided under the Land Reforms Act had not been paid, the petitioner and his mother filed O.P.No.1616/89 for a direction to the Land Tribunal to fix the compensation as provided under Section 90 of the Land Reforms Act and to pay the same without any further delay. A Division Bench of this Court, after a detailed consideration, held that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation. Thereafter, the Land Board passed the order dated 23-11-2001, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P (C).No.15779/03. This Court set aside the order and directed the Land Tribunal to pass order afresh. The State filed Review Petition No.414/07 pointing out that the Land Tribunal, Peermed was abolished. Thereupon, this Court, as per judgment dated 17-6-2009 in R.P.No.414/07 directed the Land Board to fix the compensation under Section 90 of the Land Reforms Act. Pursuant to the above said direction, the Land Board, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, decided to give a compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per Acre and the total compensation for 226.93.500 Acres would come to Rs.22,693.50 rounded to Rs.22,694/- only. The legality and propriety of the said order are under challenge in this Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew my attention to Sections 90(4) and 92(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and contends that the order under challenge is passed in violation of the statutory mandate contemplated under the said sections. Similarly, the rate of compensation fixed by the court below is too low when comparing with the nature of land which would be revealed from the evidence on record itself. Without complying the statutory mandate, the Land Board passed the impugned order in a perfunctory manner without application of mind. The excess land was surrendered in the year 1976 and more than 35 years had been elapsed after taking possession of the said land. But the Land Board fixed interest for 16 years only. Thus, the order under challenge is unsustainable and liable to be set aside, in view of the statutory mandate under the above sections.
3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader advanced arguments to justify the compensation determined by the Land Board.
4. Going by Section 90(4) of the Land Reforms Act, the statutory mandate is that after considering the objections, if any, received within the specified period, the Land Board shall pass an order recording his reasons for each entry in the final compensation rate and for accepting or rejecting the objections. Needless to say, it was incumbent upon the Land Board to state reasons for acceptance and rejection of the objections. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew my attention to the objections filed by the petitioner, which contains serious objections as regards the quantum of compensation, rate of interest, the period for which he is entitled to get interest, the category of land, etc. But, apparently, none of these objections are considered in the impugned order. Similarly, though more than 35 years have been elapsed after taking possession of the land, interest is given for 16 years at the rate of 4.5%, no reasoning has been given for denying the interest for the remaining long period of more than 19 years. It is pertinent to note that in the objection, he has claimed interest at a higher rate for a period after 16 years also. That claim also has not been considered by the Land Board.
5. Coming to the category of land determined and the rate of compensation fixed, I find that the determination of category of the land by the Land Board is not in accordance with the nature and lie of the land revealed from the admitted evidence on record. Needless to say, the rate of compensation at Rs.100/- per Acre is too low and stands without any reasoning to justify it. Thus, I find that the Land Board has not determined the compensation in accordance with the statutory mandate under Sections 90(4) and 92(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
6. Therefore, I set aside the order under challenge and remit the case to the Land Board for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with the mandate under the above sections, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of three months from today.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE)
okb.