In this land acquisition appeal, the High Court re-fixed land value at 26,000/- per cent by validating the sale deed price while awarding 25,000/- for injurious affection due to the elevated height of the bye-pass road constructed.
Land value fixed at 26,000/- per cent and compensation of ₹25,000 awarded for injurious affection.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/16TH KARTHIKA, 1935
LA.App..No. 808 of 2005 ( )
---------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 304/2001 OF ADDL. SUB COURT, THALASSERY DATED 05-08-2004
APPELLANT (CLAIMANT) :
P.V. GANGADHARAN, SAJI BHAVAN, KIZHUTHALLI, KANNUR-18.
BY ADVS.SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
SRI.D.NARENDRA NATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE
RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT) :
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), KANNUR.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.P. PADMALAYAN
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------------------L.A.A. No.808 of 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7th day of November, 2013
J U D G M E N T
S. Siri Jagan, J
The claimant in LAR No.304/2001 before the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery, is the appellant herein. The properties belonging to the appellant was acquired by the State, as per a notification dated 01/11/1997, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at ₹5,000/- per cent. The reference court enhanced the land value to 7,500/- per cent. There was a building in the₹ property. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the same, at 94,570/-. The reference court enhanced the same by₹ ₹ 28,371/-. The total extent of the property was 15.750 cents, out of which 11.5 cents were acquired. According to the appellant, on account of the acquisition, the value of the balanced land diminished considerably, despite which, no compensation was granted for injurious affection to the balanced land. The appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the judgment of the Sub Court, on the
L.A.A. No.808 of 2005
2
ground that the land value and the value of the building fixed by the Sub Court is on the lower side and the Lower Court should have awarded reasonable compensation for injurious affection as well.
in detail.
L.A.A. No.808 of 2005
3
which the building in the property was valued at ₹ 50,000/-. The Sub Court had entered a finding that, the respondent had no case that the appellant had purchased the property, knowing about the acquisition, for a fancy price so as to claim higher compensation. But the Sub Court came to an independent conclusion that, since the purchase was a few months prior to the acquisition, the same cannot be considered as a genuine document. We do not find any justification for such a conclusion, especially when the respondents had no such case. Apart from the same, the Sub Court has after discarding all evidence adduced by the appellant, simply fixed the land value holding that the Court had earlier fixed 5,000/-₹ per cent, for other properties acquired under the same notification and therefore, he awards only 7,500/- per₹ cent. That reasoning is also faulty. There is nothing to indicate that the appellant had, knowing fully well about
L.A.A. No.808 of 2005
4
the acquisition purchased the property for a fancy price. The appellant had contended that he had already rennovated the existing building. This appears to be true, since the Sub Court has awarded much more than the original value for the building fixed in the title deed. It cannot be simply assumed that a person who knows that his property would be acquired shortly would spend money to rennovate the building in that property. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that, Ext.A1 document, by which the appellant himself purchased the land acquired is a genuine document and therefore, the same can be relied upon for the purpose of fixing the land value. The total extent purchased by the appellant by Ext.A1 document was 15.750 cents. Out of the total sale consideration of 4,50,000/-, if the value of building₹ namely 50,000/- is reduced, the sale consideration for₹ the land would be 4,00,000/-, per cent. Therefore, the₹
L.A.A. No.808 of 2005
5
land value would be 25,396/- per cent. The acquisition₹ was six months after the purchase of the land by the appellant. Therefore, we fix the land value at 26,000/-₹ per cent.
for a bye-pass road. It is also in evidence that the byepass road was constructed at a height of two meters from the balance property remaining with the appellant after the acquisition. Therefore, that would certainly affect the value of the balance property. We therefore, award a compensation of 25,000/- towards injurious affection.₹ Needless to say that the appellant would be entitled to
L.A.A. No.808 of 2005
6
statutory benefits based on the above land value re-fixed by us. If the amount awarded is more than the claim of the appellant, the appellant shall pay balance court fee, payable on the additional compensation awarded by us.
The above modification of the impugned
judgment, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
S. Siri Jagan, Judge
Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge
// True Copy //
P.A. to Judge
ss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sale deed executed a few months before acquisition is genuine for fixing land value.
Whether compensation for injurious affection to the balance land should be awarded.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.V. Gangadharan
The Special Tahsildar (L.A), Kannur
S. Siri Jagan
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
