The High Court allowed the State's appeal holding the Sub Court's reasoning for revising land value insufficient. The matter was remanded to fix land value with adequate reasoning regarding property comparability.
Judgment of the Sub Court set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration of land value fixation with specific reasons.
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 BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/14TH CHAITHRA 1935
LA.App..No. 905 of 2010 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR.439/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM
APPELALNTS/RESPONDENTS.:
BY ADVS.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (SRI. E.M. ABDUL KHADER)
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
KRISHNAN NADAR, S/O.RAMAN NADA, AND SUBHADRA, SUBHADRA BHAVAN, POOZHIKKUNNU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA BY ADV. SRI.M.S.KALESH BY ADV. SMT.A.V.PRIYA
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S. SIRI JAGAN
&
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
L.A.A.No. 905 of 2010
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2013 JUDGMENT
Siri Jagan, J.
The State has come up in appeal challenging the judgment of the II Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in L.A.R. No.439 of 2007. The property belonging to the respondent herein was acquired as per a notification dated 19.9.2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.73,813/- per are. On reference, the Sub Court revised the land value at Rs.3,24,107/per are. The State challenges the land value fixed by the Sub Court.
[L.A.A.905/2010] 2
comparable properties and simply adopted the valuation in Ext.A1 document for the purpose of fixation of land value of the acquired land. The contention is that the Sub Court does not say in the judgment as to how the properties are comparable, the distance between the two properties, the lie of the two properties, the potentialities of the properties, the nearness to important institutions etc. Therefore, the decision of the Sub Court is arbitrary, is the contention raised.
“Claimant has produced Exts.A1 the certified copy of sale deed No.3707/06 of Nemom Sub Registrar Office in which the land value comprised in survey No.886/6 of Nemom Village was sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- excluding valuation of the building the land value per are is Rs.3,24,107/- per are. It is submitted that the property covered by Ext.A1 sale deed is similar to the lands acquired in this reference. Hence, the land value @ Rs.3,24,107/- per are is fixed as the land value to the lands acquired in this reference.”
We are of opinion that the said reasoning is not at all sufficient to come to the conclusion that the land involved in Ext.A1 document is comparable to the acquired land. The Sub Court ought to have stated as to the distance between the two
[L.A.A.905/2010] 3
properties, the lie of the properties, the nearness to important institutions etc. which are factors relevant for fixation of land value under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the judgment of the Sub Court and to remand it for fresh consideration for fixation of the land value in accordance with law. Accordingly, the judgment of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in L.A.R. No.439 of 2007 is set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the Sub Court and re-fixation of land value by giving reasons as to how land value has been arrived at. If the Sub Court still inclined to accept that Ext.A1 document relates to comparable properties, specific reasons shall be set out as to how the property involved in Ext.A1 and the acquired property are comparable. It would also be open to the parties to adduce additional evidence if they wish to do so.
The appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
krs.
// True Copy //
P.S. to Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the reasoning provided by the Sub Court for revising the land value is sufficient under the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the comparison with Ext.A1 document adequately establishes comparability of the properties for valuation purposes.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram
The Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Thiruvananthapuram
Krishnan Nadar
Siri Jagan
Babu Mathew P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
