Husband and wife can joint claim application under land acquisition Act

 Notice itself was issued to the husband and the wife for making their claim for lands respectively held by them which was taken over under the Land Reforms Act. They also filed jointly their claim statement as indicated in the statement filed in this Court. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal should have granted to both the claimants the compensation for the lands respectively held by the husband as well as the wife. Since the wife was not separately awarded while granting the compensation to the husband, when the appeal was filed, the High Court of Kerala in the impugned order dated July 6, 1984 in LAA No. 266/78 dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was no separate claim made by the wife. The High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that: the claim was not made by the wife. She and her husband jointly laid the claim and so it would be that they both made the claim in respect of their respective holdings. In that situation, the State should have granted compensation to the lands respectively held by them.

Supreme Court of India

Surbuddin And Another vs State Of Kerala And Another on 23 January, 1995

Equivalent citations: AIR 1995 SC 1122, 1995 (1) SCALE 332, (1995) 2 SCC 376

2. Notice itself was issued to the husband and the wife for making their claim for lands respectively held by them which was taken over under the Land Reforms Act. They also filed jointly their claim statement as indicated in the statement filed in this Court. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal should have granted to both the claimants the compensation for the lands respectively held by the husband as well as the wife. Since the wife was not separately awarded while granting the compensation to the husband, when the appeal was filed, the High Court of Kerala in the impugned order dated July 6, 1984 in LAA No. 266/78 dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was no separate claim made by the wife. The High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that: the claim was not made by the wife. She and her husband jointly laid the claim and so it would be that they both made the claim in respect of their respective holdings. In that situation, the State should have granted compensation to the lands respectively held by them.
3. The, appeal is accordingly allowed. The competent authority is directed to compute the compensation payable to the wife in respect of the land held by her. No costs.

Print Page