Trial Courts Should Decide Issue Regarding Acceptability Of Commission Report Before Proceeding With Trial Of Suit If Any Party Challenges It: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court said that the Trial Courts are expected to decide the issue regarding the acceptability of the Commission Report before proceeding with the trial of the suit if anyone has challenged Commission Report and Plan.
The Court was dealing with a land acquisition appeal in which the issue was over an amount which the Land Acquisition Authorities deposited before the Additional Sub Court at Thalassery.
A Single Bench of Justice G. Girish observed, “For avoiding the above unhealthy trend and practice of compromising the grave errors and anomalies in the Commission Report, and declining further enquiry in the matter, it is highly necessary to proceed with the enquiry relating to the acceptability of the Commission Report forthwith, once an application is filed by any of the parties in that regard. Therefore, the Trial Courts are expected to decide the issue regarding the acceptability of the Commission Report before proceeding with the trial of the suit, if any of the parties have moved an application challenging the Commission Report and Plan.”
The Bench enunciated that when a party to the litigation moves an application challenging the acceptability of the Commission Report and plan, it is incumbent upon the court concerned to proceed with the enquiry on that matter by the examination of the Advocate Commissioner and any other person, who assisted him in the preparation of the report and plan, and to arrive at a finding as to whether the records are worth to be taken as evidence in the suit, and part of the case records.
Advocates Cibi Thomas and Lohithakshan Chathadi Kannoth represented the appellants.
Brief Facts -
A land was purchased by KINFRA in connection with the construction of Kannur Airport, however, a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (LA Act) was made in respect of the compensation amount. As per the respondent, the compensation amount deposited by the acquisition authorities in respect of the land was to be given to him since the land was under his absolute title and possession ever since 1986. The appellants strongly disputed such claim. In a Commission Application filed by the claimant (respondent), the Reference Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner (AC) with the assistance of Village Officer to conduct a local investigation in the disputed property and to prepare a report and plan. The AC prepared an undated, cryptic one page report and filed the same, along with a sketch which did not contain the requisite particulars of a measured plan. The Commission Report and plan were marked in the trial before the Reference Court.
The application filed by the appellants was disposed of by the Reference Court and thereafter, the High Court directed the Reference Court to consider the concerned aspects and pass fresh orders within two months. The said court again relegated the adjudication on the challenge against the acceptability of the Commission Report and again the matter was taken up before the High Court. While dismissing the plea, the High Court provided an option to the appellants to produce the plan along with fresh application for remittance of the report. But the application of the appellants was dismissed and they challenged this. In the appeal, the grievance of the appellants was that the Reference Court totally ignored the observations of the High Court and decided the issue upon the false notion that they did not produce documents evidencing their title over the disputed property.
The High Court in view of the above facts remarked, “The practice followed by many courts relegating the challenge against the Commission Report and plan to the final stage of evidence in the suit, would result in tricky situations causing hardships to the parties and inconvenience to the court itself. This is because of the fact that, if the Commission Report is found to be unworthy at the final stage of the litigation, at a time when the court is all set for the disposal of the suit after the completion of all other evidence, the remission of the Commission Report to the Advocate Commissioner for further enquiry at that stage, would complicate the matter and result in abrupt procrastination of the proceedings.”
The Court added that such precarious situation may compel, at least a small minority of the Presiding Officers, to ignore the fallacies and errors in the Commission Report for the sake of a disposal of the suit.
“As far as the present case is concerned, the impugned decree and judgment rendered by the Reference Court, cannot be permitted to survive in view of the fact that the Trial Court did not take any effort to have the relevant materials procured for an effective and comprehensive adjudication of the issue involved”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Court, and remanded back the case for a fresh disposal.
Cause Title- R.K. Ramakrishanan & Ors. v. P.C. Moosa Haji & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:32068)
