The High Court allowed the land acquisition appeal, increasing compensation enhancement. The Court fixed the market value at Rs.27,500 per Are, considering superior quality and existing Supreme Court judgments on similar rates, despite rejecting certain post-notification documents.
Market value of land fixed at Rs.27,500/- per Are; appeal allowed to this extent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932
LA.App..No. 843 of 2006(A) ------------------------------LAR.104/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA ....................
APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT:
ALICE, W/O.JOY, VATHUPPALLIYA KAYALMUTTUPARAMBIL, PALLIPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:
ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SC, KSIDC FOR R2 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
L. A. A. No.843 of 2006
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Pallippuram
village was acquired for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Growth Centre of the KSIDC at Pallippuram. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 24/01/97. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.14,586/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimant adduced evidence which consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, X1 Commissioner's Report and the oral evidence of AWs.1 to 3. On the side of the respondents, the evidence consisted of R1, R2 and oral evidence of RW1. Exts.A1 and A2 were the documents relied
on by the claimant to support her claim for enhancement in
L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 -2-
land value. The court below did not place specific reliance on these documents giving the reason that the parties to these documents were not cited to prove the circumstances under which the documents were executed. Apart from that, in our view there was a better reason justifying the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in ignoring these documents for the purpose of re-fixing the market value. Both these documents are post notification documents and could not have been relied on when other documents including the basis document executed prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification were available. What the learned Subordinate Judge ultimately did was to do some guess work and re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.24,700/- per Are.
L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 -3-
granted by the Reference Court under the impugned judgment. Before us, Sri.Joshi N. Thomas, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the court below was not justified in ignoring Exts.A1 and A2. According to him, at least Ext.A2 could have been taken into account and enhancement granted at least at the rate of Rs.41,990/- per Are, the rate claimed in this appeal. Sri.Jayapradeep, the learned counsel for the respondent would however, support the impugned judgment. According to him, even the enhancement granted under the impugned judgment is exorbitant and is not justified. Sri.Jayapradeep submitted that though the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded higher value to the properties under acquisition than the value awarded for other categories including the category for which the rate of 7678/- was granted the reality is that in quality this property was not in much superior.
L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 -4-
submissions addressed at the Bar. It is clear to our mind that Exts.A1 and A2 could not have been made a basis for awarding enhancement to the appellant. But then the question is whether there is justification for granting further enhancement over what is awarded under the impugned judgment. In this connection, we notice the judgment of this Court and that of Supreme Court granting approval to the re-fixation of the value of lands for which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded value at the rate of Rs.7678/- per Are, to Rs.17,290/- per Are. The submission of Sri.Jayapradeep notwithstanding, we take it that the property under acquisition in the present case was superior in value and quality than those properties for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded only Rs.7876/- per Are. According to us, there must be some co-relation between the values of different categories of properties lying contiguously within a local area. This means that the final
L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 -5-
judgment by the Supreme Court that the correct market value of the property for which the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.7678/-, is Rs.17290/- per Are should have some bearing on the correct market value to be determined
for the property in question. However, we do notice the minus factors which were noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge in respect of the property under acquisition. Keeping those minus factors in mind, we are of the view that the appellant cannot aspire for an increase in equal proportion to the increase which was given to the properties for which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the value of Rs.7876/- per Are. According to us, the market value of the properties under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at Rs.27,500/- per Are. It is accordingly, fixed allowing this appeal to that extent. The appellant is entitled for all statutory benefits also on the total enhanced compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of this
-6-
L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 -6re-fixation. Appeal is allowed as above, however, without
any order as to costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE
kns/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to further enhancement in compensation beyond the rate awarded by the Reference Court.
Whether the market value of the acquired property should be re-fixed considering superior value and quality compared to other properties in the area.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ALICE
KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALAI
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
