Disposed

State of Kerala v. K.Maniyan

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016LA.App./86/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compensation for land acquired for road widening was disputed. The court dismissed both appeals concerning the principal respondent, including claims for additional area and structures. In connected matters, it reduced certain valuations, enhanced compensation in the cross-objection, and dismissed the remaining enhancement appeals.

What did the court decide?

Specified connected awards modified with interest and statutory benefits; compensation enhanced in the cross-objection with proportionate costs.

State of Kerala Vs K.Maniyan — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

LA.App..No. 86 of 2013 ()

¶7

-------------------------LAR 839/2009 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR.:

¶9

------------------------------

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, NH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R. PADMARAJ

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT IN L.A.R:

¶14

K.MANIYAN, MELE ERIYANNOORKONATH VEEDU, KURISSADI JUNCTION, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-3-2016 ALONG WITH LA.App.No.280/2013 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 21-06-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

“CR”

¶19

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶20

--------------------------------------------------

¶21

L.A.A.Nos.86/2013, 229/2013, 238/2013, 280/2013, 384/2013, 637/2013, 722/2013, 732/2013, 785/2013, C.O.No.54/2013 in L.A.A.No. 384/2013, L.A.A.Nos.176/2014, 354/2014 & 766/2014

¶22

-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J .

¶25

These appeals and cross objection arise out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 31.1.2005, 19.11.2005 and 20.1.2006 for the purpose of widening of MannanthalaKesavadasapuram Road in Thiruvananthapuram District.

¶26

Since identical issued are raised, we propose to deal with

¶27

all these appeals and cross objection by a common judgment, treating L.A.A.No.820/2013 as the leading case.

¶28

The brief facts of the appeals and cross objection are as follows;

¶29

3.1. L.A.A.No.280/2013:- This appeal filed by the State arises out of the judgment and decree of the II Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as 'the reference

¶30

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -2-

¶31

court') in L.A.R.No.827/2009. An extent of 0.09 Ares of land in Re-survey No.24/91 of Ulloor Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk owned by the claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 19.11.2005 for the purpose of widening of Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of 2,94,444/- per Are. On₹ a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference

¶32

court by the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2012 in L.A.R.No.827/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are, relying on Ext.A1 judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.1204/2010 and Ext.X1 report of the Advocate Commissioner. Challenging the judgment and decree of the reference court, to the extent of re-fixing the land value of the acquired land at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are ₹ the State is in appeal, contending that the land value re-fixed by the reference court is on a higher side.

¶33

3.2. L.A.A.Nos.86/2013 & 238/2013:- L.A.A.No.86/2013

¶34

filed by the State and L.A.A.No.238/2013 filed by the claimant arise out of the judgment and decree of the the reference court in

¶35

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -3-

¶36

L.A.R.No.839/2009. An extent of 0.08 Ares of land in Re Survey No.440/44 of Kudappanakunnu Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk owned by the claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 31.1.2005 for the purpose of widening of Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of 2,69,900/- per Are. On₹ a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference

¶37

court by the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2012 in L.A.R.No.839/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are, relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.684/2009. However, the reference court rejected case of the claimant as to the total extent of land acquired and also the claim for compensation for structures. The reference court held that, the extent of land acquired is only 0.08 Ares and that, the claimant is not justified in claiming compensation for the structures admittedly removed by him from the acquired land. Challenging the judgment and decree of the reference court, to the extent of re-fixing the land value of the acquired land at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are, the State has filed

¶38

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶39

-4-

¶40

L.A.A.No.86/2013, contending that the land value re-fixed by the reference court is on a higher side. Per contra, in L.A.A.No.86/2013 the claimant is challenging the finding of the reference court as to the actual extent of the acquired land, the value of the structures, and also claiming enhanced land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are ₹ for the acquired land, relying on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.671/2009.

¶41

3.3. L.A.A.Nos.229/2013 & 637/2013:- L.A.A.No.229/2013 filed by the State and L.A.A.No.637/2013 filed by the claimant arise out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.653/2009. An extent of 0.16 Ares of land in Re-survey No.439/41 of Kudappanakunnu Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk owned by the claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 31.1.2005 for the purpose of widening of Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of 2,69,906/- per Are. On₹ a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference

¶42

court by the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2012 in L.A.R.No.653/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of

¶43

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -5-

¶44

₹9,16,000/- per Are, relying on the judgment in

¶45

L.A.R.No.577/2009. Challenging the judgment and decree of the reference court, to the extent of re-fixing the land value of the acquired land at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are, the State has₹ filed L.A.A.No.229/2013 contending that the land value re-fixed by the reference court is on a higher side. Per contra, in L.A.A.No.229/2013 the claimant is claiming enhanced land value

¶46

at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are for the acquired land, relying₹ on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.825/2009.

¶47

3.4. L.A.A.No.384/2013 & C.O.No.54/2013:- The appeal

¶48

filed by the State as L.A.A.No.384/2013 and C.O.No.54/2013 filed by the claimant arise out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.577/2009. An extent of 1.13 Ares of land in Re-survey No.19/124 of Kowdiar Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk owned by the claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 31.1.2005 for the purpose of widening of Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road.

¶49

The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ₹2,94,443/- per Are. On a reference made under Section 18 of

¶50

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -6-

¶51

the Act, the reference court by the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2012 in L.A.R.No.577/2009 re-fixed the land value at ₹9,16,000/- per Are, by giving 15% increase in the land value in Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.Nos.276/2004 and 54/2004 and Ext.A2 judgment in L.A.R.Nos.290/2005 and 291/2005. Challenging the judgment and decree of the reference court, to the extent of refixing the land value of the acquired land at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are, the State has filed L.A.A.No.384/2013 contending that the land value re-fixed by the reference court is on a higher side. Per contra, in C.O.No.54/2013 the claimant is claiming enhanced land value at the rate of 24,17,100/- per Are₹ for the acquired land, relying on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.Nos.675/2009 and 827/2009.

¶52

3.5. L.A.A.No.722/2013:- This appeal filed by the State arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.659/2009. An extent of 0.62 Ares of land in Re-survey No.451/53 of Kudappanakunnu Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk owned by the claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 20.1.2006 for the purpose of widening of

¶53

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -7-

¶54

Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of 2,45,369/- per Are. On₹ a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference court by the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2012 in L.A.R.No.659/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of ₹13,74,000/- per Are, by awarding 50% increase to the enhanced land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are re-fixed for D₹ Category land in Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.650/2009. Challenging the judgment and decree of the reference court, to the extent of re-fixing the land value of the acquired land at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are, the State is in appeal contending₹ that the land value re-fixed by the reference court is on a higher side.

¶55

3.6. L.A.A.No.732/2013:- This appeal filed by the State arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.825/2009. An extent of 0.03 Ares of land in Re-survey No.22/89 of Ulloor Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk owned

¶56

by the claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 31.1.2005 for the purpose of widening of

¶57

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶58

-8-

¶59

Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of 2,94,433/- per Are. On₹ a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference court by the judgment and decree dated 12.9.2012 in L.A.R.No.825/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are, relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.827/2009. Challenging the judgment and decree of the reference court, to the extent of re-fixing the land value of the acquired land at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are, the State is in₹ appeal contending that the land value re-fixed by the reference court is on a higher side.

¶60

3.7. L.A.A.No.785/2013:- This appeal filed by the State arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.565/2009. An extent of 0.17 Ares of land in Re-survey No.451/45 of Kudappanakunnu Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk owned by the claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 31.1.2005 for the purpose of widening of Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of 2,45,369/- per Are. On₹

¶61

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -9-

¶62

a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference court by the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2012 in L.A.R.No.565/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of ₹13,74,000/- per Are, by awarding 50% increase to the enhanced land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- re-fixed for D category land₹ in Ext.A1 judgment L.A.R.No.650/2009. Challenging the judgment and decree of the reference court, to the extent of refixing the land value of the acquired land at the rate of ₹13,74,000/- per Are, the State is in appeal contending that the land value re-fixed by the reference court is on a higher side.

¶63

3.8. L.A.A.No.176/2014:- This appeal filed by the claimant arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.864/2009. An extent of 0.90 Ares of land in Re-survey No.447/25 and 447/39 of Kudappanakunnu Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk owned by the claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 19.11.2005 for the purpose of widening of Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ₹2,26,674/- per Are. On a reference made under Section 18 of

¶64

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶65

-10-

¶66

the Act, the reference court by the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2012 in L.A.R.No.864/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are, relying on Ext.A1 judgment in₹ L.A.R.No.650/2009. The claimant has filed L.A.A.No.176/2014 claiming enhanced land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are₹ for the acquired land, relying on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.Nos.675/2009, 827/2009 and 865/2009.

¶67

3.9. L.A.A.No.766/2014:- This appeal filed by the claimant arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.567/2009. An extent of 0.14 Ares of land in Re-survey No.451/49 of Kudappanakunnu Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk owned by the claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 31.1.2005 for the purpose of widening of Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of 2,45,369/- per Are. On₹ a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference court by the judgment and decree dated 13.9.2012 in L.A.R.No.567/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are, relying on Ext.A1 judgment in

¶68

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶69

-11-

¶70

L.A.R.No.650/2009. The claimant has filed L.A.A.No.766/2014 claiming enhanced land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are₹ for the acquired land.

¶71

3.10. L.A.A.No.354/2014:This appeal filed by the claimant arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.572/2009. An extent of 0.35 Ares of land in Re-survey No.448/30 of Kudappanakunnu Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk owned by the claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 19.11.2005 for the purpose of widening of Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of 2,26,674/- per Are. On₹ a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference court by the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2012 in L.A.R.No.572/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are, relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.650/2009. The claimant has filed L.A.A.No.354/2014 claiming a total enhancement of land value by 2,00,000/- for₹ the acquired land having an extent of 0.35 Ares. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant/claimant filed

¶72

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶73

-12-

¶74

I.A.No.409/2016 seeking an order to amend the valuation shown in the memorandum of appeal in order to claim a further enhancement of land value by 2,00,000/- for the acquired land,₹ which application filed after remitting the requisite court fee of the additional compensation, which was allowed by order dated 29.3.2014.

¶75

We heard the arguments of the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the State and also the learned counsel appearing for the claimants in the appeals/cross objection.

¶76

The main challenge in these appeals/cross objection is against the re-fixation of the land value of the acquired land made by the reference court.

¶77

First, we shall first deal with L.A.A.No.280/2013, which is treated as the leading case.

¶78

6.1. L.A.A.No.280/2013 filed by the State arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in LA.R.No.827/2009.

¶79

The land having an extent of 0.09 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.24/91 of Ulloor Village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1)

¶80

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶81

-13-

¶82

notification dated 19.11.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of 2,94,444/- per Are. The land was₹ taken possession on 1.4.2008. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act.

¶83

6.2. Before the reference court the claimant filed claim statement contending that the acquired land, which has been classified under A-Category by the Land Acquisition Officer, is situated on the western side of M.C.Road about 100 mtrs. away from Keshavadasapuram junction. The acquired land is a commercial plot situated in a thickly populated commercial cum residential area. The acquired land, which is in the heart of the city, would have fetched more than 30,00,000/- at the time of₹ Section 4(1) notification. At the time of acquisition, a portion of the building which was standing on the acquired land was also demolished for which claimant is entitled to get 1,00,000/- as₹ compensation.

¶84

6.3. The respondent State filed written statement contending that the land value fixed by the reference court is fair

¶85

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶86

-14-

¶87

and reasonable and that all the relevant aspects were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of fixing the land value of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer has also adverted to the evidence produced by the claimant while passing the award and as such the claimant is not entitled for any further enhancement in the land value.

¶88

6.4. Before the reference court, the claimant himself was examined as AW1 and the Advocate Commissioner who prepared Ext.X1 report was examined as AW2. The claimant relied on Ext.A1 judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.1204/2010 and Ext.A2 judgment in L.A.A.No.151/2011. On the side of the respondents, the Mahazar, Plan, Valuation Statement and Note to Award were marked as Exts.R1 to R4. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.

¶89

6.5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the reference court found that a portion of the building situated in the acquired land was also included in the acquisition, for which a sum of 1,000/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition₹ Officer as compensation. In Ext.R1 mahazar it has been stated

¶90

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶91

-15-

¶92

that the building in the acquired land was an old dilapidated building. Though the claimant contended that he is entitled to get ₹1,00,000/- as compensation for the portion of the building acquired, there was no reliable evidence in support of this claim. Therefore, the reference court held that the claimant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation for the portion of the building acquired.

¶93

6.6. As far as the claim for enhancement of land value is concerned, the claimant has relied on Exts.A1 and A2 judgments of this Court in L.A.A.No.1204/2010 and L.A.A.No.151/2011. The claimant has also relied on Ext.X1 report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and the oral evidence of the Advocate Commissioner, who was examined as AW2. The claimant contended that, the acquired land is a better property than that covered by Exts.A1 and A2 and hence, he is entitled to get the land value re-fixed based on Exts.A1 and A2 judgments.

¶94

6.7. Ext.A1 judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.1204/2010,

¶95

arising out of the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.297/2008, is in respect of the land acquisition

¶96

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶97

-16-

¶98

proceedings initiated pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 16.9.2004, for the purpose of widening of Pattom-MarappalamKowdiar road, in which this Court re-fixed the land value of the acquired land situated on the side of Pattom-Marappalam Road, about 500 meters away from Pattom junction, at the rate of Rs.24,00,000/- per Are. Similarly, Ext.A2 judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.151/2011 is in respect of the land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 24.6.2006, for the purpose of widening of Pattom-MurinjapalamKumarapuram road, where the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ₹2,48,125/- per Are. In L.A.A.No.151/2011, this Court re-fixed the land value of the said land at the rate of 12,35,000/- per Are. ₹

¶99

6.8. Admittedly, Ext.A1 and A2 judgments are not connected with the land acquisition proceedings in the instant appeal. The claimant would contend that the acquired land in the instant appeal is a better property than that in Exts.A1 and A2 judgments. In order to substantiate the said contention, the claimant would rely on Ext.X1 report submitted by the Advocate

¶100

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -17-

¶101

Commissioner, who submitted the said report after inspecting the acquired land in the instant appeal and also that in Exts.A1 and A2 judgments. The claimant would also rely on the oral evidence of the Advocate Commissioner, who was examined as AW2.

¶102

6.9. In Ext.X1 report AW2 has reported that the acquired land in the instant appeal, which is situated adjacent to M.C.Road, is at a distance of 1 km. away from Pattom Junction and 60 mtr. away from Kesavadasapuram Junction and that, M.C.Road is having frequent long distance bus services. On the other hand, the acquired land in Ext.A1 judgment is situated on the side of Pattom-Marappalam-Kowdiar road, which is having no bus service. Therefore, AW2 has reported that, the acquired land in the instant case is a better property than that in Ext.A1 judgment.

¶103

6.10. In Ext.X1 report, AW2 has also reported that, the property in Ext.A2 judgment is situated near Kumarapuram junction, about 1 kms. away from Pattom junction, on the side of Murinjapalam-Kumarapuram road and there is only few bus services through this road. Therefore, the acquired land in the

¶104

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -18-

¶105

instant case is a better property than that in Ext.A2 judgment. AW2 has also reported in Ext.X1 that there are shops and other commercial establishments, Bank, college, school, etc. within a distance of 500 meters from the acquired land in the instant case.

¶106

6.11. During cross-examination, AW2 has admitted that in Ext.X1 report she has not stated the distance of the acquired land in Ext.A1 from Pattom junction. She deposed that the said land is at a distance of 500 mtr. from Pattom Junction. AW2 has also deposed that, the acquired land in the instant case is situated adjacent to M.C.Road having bus service, whereas, that in Ext.A1 judgment is on the side of Pattom-Marappalam-Kowdiar road having no bus service. Therefore, according to AW2, M.C.Road is having more importance than Pattom-Marappalam-Kowdiar road. AW2 has also deposed that, the acquired land in Ext.A2 judgment is on the side of G.G.Hospital-Kumarapuram road having no frequent bus services. Therefore, the acquired land in the instant case is having more importance than that in Ext.A2 judgment.

¶107

6.12. During cross-examination AW2 has admitted that, the

¶108

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -19-

¶109

widening of M.C.Road was only after the acquisition in question. AW2 has denied the suggestion that, the acquired land covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are situated on residential area and that there are more establishments and residential buildings in that locality. She has also denied the suggestion that there are no buildings or establishments near the acquired land in the instant case.

¶110

6.13. The reference court, after considering the evidence of AW2 concluded that, since nothing was brought out during the cross-examination of the Advocate Commissioner to discredit Ext.X1 or the evidence tendered by her, there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the evidence of AW2 and Ext.X1 report submitted by her. The reference court observed that the facts noted by AW2 in Ext.X1 report shows that the acquired land in the instant case is situated at a very important location than the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 judgments. Thereafter, on the basis of the facts stated in Ext.X1 report, the reference court concluded that the acquired land in the instant case and that covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are similar properties similarly situated. Based on an application made by the claimant, the

¶111

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶112

-20-

¶113

reference court perused the records in L.A.R.No.297/2008, i.e., the Lower Court Records in L.A.A.No.1204/2010 (in which Section 4(1) notification was published on 16.9.2004) and concluded that Ext.A1 judgment can be taken as the basis for fixing the land value of the acquired land in the instant case. Accordingly, the reference court re-fixed the land value of the acquired land at ₹24,00,000/- per Are. The reference was answered in favour of

¶114

the claimant holding that he is entitled to get enhanced compensation of 1,89,500/- in respect of 0.09 Ares of land,₹ together with interest and other statutory benefits.

¶115

6.14. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Siddappa

¶116

Omanna Tumari (1995 Supp.2 SCC 168) the Apex Court held that, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant before the Court for giving market value of the acquired land, the Court may, choose to act upon such report for determination of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land, if the data or the material on the basis of which such report is based is produced before the Court and the authenticity of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted therein is

¶117

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶118

-21-

¶119

correct. Following the said principle laid down by the Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court (to which both of us are members) held in State of Kerala v. Thomas (2016 (1) KHC 400) that the Reference Court is not expected to accept blindly* such reports for determining the land value of the acquired land. (* inserted vide order dated 26.2.2016 in L.A.A.No.18/2015 & connected cases)

¶120

6.15. In Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage

¶121

Board v. K.S.Gangadharappa (2009 (11) SCC 164) the Apex

¶122

Court laid down the factors which merit consideration as comparable sales as under; The element of speculation is reduced to minimum in fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales, when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It should be a bona fide transaction. It should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired and it should possess similar advantages. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case.

¶123

6.16. In Kapil Mehra v. Union of India (2015 (2) SCC

¶124

262) the Apex Court reiterated that, the preferable mode for

¶125

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -22-

¶126

determination of market value is comparative sales method. In fixation of market value, the first question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to keep in mind the following factors; (i) existing geographical situation of the land; (ii) existing use of the land; (iii) already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area; and (iv) market value of other lands situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the acquired land. The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of

¶127

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶128

-23-

¶129

preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value.

¶130

6.17. In the instant case, Section 4(1) notification was published on 19.11.2005. In the reference, which was pending before the reference court as L.A.R.No.827/2009, the claimant filed I.A.No.2096/2012 seeking an order to depute an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the acquired land and also the land covered by Exts.A1 and A2 judgments and to submit a report. Pursuant to that order, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the properties on 20.6.2012, nearly 7 years after the Section 4(1) notification. Much prior to the inspection conducted by the Advocate Commissioner the widening of M.C.Road in the area in question has been completed, which fact is not seriously disputed before this Court. The said fact is also admitted by AW2 during cross-examination.

¶131

6.18. Ext.X1 report of the Advocate Commissioner would not indicate as to whether the shops and commercial establishments referred to therein were in existence in the vicinity of the acquired land as on the date of Section 4(1)

¶132

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶133

-24-

¶134

notification, i.e., as on 19.11.2005. The Advocate Commissioner has not even prepared a rough sketch of the acquired land in the instant case and also the land covered by Ext.A1 and A2 judgments.

¶135

6.19. Since the claimants in the connected appeals/cross objection are relying on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.827/2009 in support of their claim for enhanced land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are for the acquired land in₹ those references, or to sustain the land value at that rate re-fixed by the reference court solely based on that judgment in L.A.R.No.827/2009, the learned counsel for the claimants in those appeals/cross objection also advanced arguments in support of the enhanced land value re-fixed by the reference court in L.A.R.No.827/2009.

¶136

6.20. The fact that the acquired land in Ext.A1 judgment is situated near Pattom Junction, on the side of the road leading to Kowdiar and that, the acquired land in Ext.A2 judgment is situated near Kumarapuram Junction, on the side of PattomMurinjapalam-Kumarapuram road, leading of Government

¶137

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -25-

¶138

Medical College, is discernible from Ext.X1 report and also the evidence of AW2. The said fact is also discernible from the map of Thiruvananthapuram City made available for the perusal of this Court by Sri.J.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the claimants in the connected cases. On the other hand, the acquired land in the instant case is situated near Kesavadasapuram Junction, on the side of M.C.Road. Therefore, merely for the reason that there are frequent long distance bus services through M.C.Road, it cannot be concluded that the acquired land in the instant case is having more importance than that in Exts.A1 and A2 judgments. Moreover, if viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Siddappa Omanna's case (supra), Ext.X1 report of the Advocate Commissioner cannot be acted upon for determining the market value of the acquired land in the instant case, in the absence of any reliable materials to show that, the acquired land in the instant case and that in Exts.A1 and A2 possess similar advantages and are similarly situated. In such circumstances, the reference court went in arriving at a conclusion that, Ext.A1 judgment can be taken as the basis for fixing land value of the

¶139

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶140

-26-

¶141

acquired land in the instant case. In that view of the matter, the re-fixation of land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 24,00,000/₹ - per Are based on Ext.X1 report, cannot be sustained.

¶142

6.21. Sri.J.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the claimant in the connected cases, would point out that, the land value refixed by this Court in the land acquisition appeals pertaining to DTP Scheme Sub Centre Palayam, widening of Bakery-Palayam road, Pattom-Kowdiar road, LMS-Attakulangara road, MuseumThampannoor Over Bridge road, Students Centre-LMSSasthamangalam road, Pattom-Medical College-Kochulloor road, Van Ross-Ottukizhi-Secretariat road, etc., is in the range of ₹14,00,000/- to 24,00,000/- per Are and as such, the land value₹ re-fixed by the reference court at the rate of 24,00,000/- per₹ Are is not on a higher side.

¶143

6.22. The facts discernible from the statement prepared by Sri.J.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the claimant in the connected cases, containing the details of the land value award by the Land Acquisition Officer and re-fixed by the reference

¶144

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶145

-27-

¶146

court and this Court, pertaining to various land acquisition proceedings in Thiruvananthapuram (copy of which was placed before this Court during the course of arguments) are as follows; In the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 30.10.2004 for the purpose of DTP Scheme Sub Centre Palayam, this Court re-fixed land value at the rate of ₹22,50,698/- per Are for the acquired land in Vanchiyoor Village; in the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 23.11.2003 for the purpose of widening of Bakery-Palayam road, this Court re-fixed land value at the rate of ₹18,90,000/- per Are for the acquired land in Vanchiyoor Village; in the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 30.1.2004 for the purpose of widening of Pattom-Kowdiar road, this Court re-fixed land value at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are for the acquired land in Kowdiar Village; in the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 17.8.2004 for the purpose of widening of LMSAttakulangara road, this Court re-fixed land value at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are for the acquired land in Vanchiyoor Village;

¶147

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶148

-28-

¶149

in the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 7.9.2004 for the purpose of widening of Museum-Thampannoor Over Bridge road, this Court re-fixed land value at the rate of 21,38,390/- per Are for the acquired land in₹ Thycadu Village; in the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 2.3.2005 for the purpose of widening of Students Centre-LMS-Sasthamangalam road, this Court re-fixed land value at the rate of 18,00,000/- per Are for₹ the acquired land in Sasthamangalam Village; in the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 24.11.2004 for the purpose of widening of Pattom-Medical College-Kochulloor road, this Court re-fixed land value at the rate of 24,17,100/- per Are for the acquired land in Pattom Village;₹ in the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 12.4.2005 for the purpose of widening of Van Ross-Ottukizhi-Secretariat road, this Court re-fixed land value at the rate of 17,00,000/- per Are for the acquired land in Thycadu₹ Village; etc.

¶150

6.23. The fact that the acquired land in those acquisition

¶151

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -29-

¶152

proceedings situate far away from the acquired land in the instant cases is discernible from the map of Thiruvananthapuram City made available for the perusal of this Court by the learned counsel. As held by the Apex Court in Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board's case (supra), in the matter of fixation of market value of the acquired land with reference to comparable sales, the sale should be of the land acquired or of any land adjacent to the land acquired and the said land should possess similar advantages. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration in the matter of fixation of market value of the acquired land as a comparable sale. Similarly, as held by the Apex Court in Kapil Mehra's case (supra), while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the relevant factors are, existing geographical situation of the land; existing use of the land; advantages of the land already available; and market value of other lands situated in the same locality adjacent or very near to the acquired land.

¶153

6.24. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the re-fixation of land value of the

¶154

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶155

-30-

¶156

acquired land in the land acquisition proceedings pertaining to the projects referred to hereinbefore is not a relevant factor which can merit a consideration in the matter of re-fixation of land value of the acquired land in the instant cases, especially when the fact that the acquired land in those acquisition proceedings situate far away from the acquired land in the instant acquisition is discernible from the map of Thiruvananthapuram City made available for the perusal of this Court by the learned counsel for the claimants. In that view of the matter, the contention advanced on behalf of the claimants that, in view of the re-fixation of market value of the acquired land in those land acquisition proceedings, the re-fixation of land value of the acquired land in the instant case at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are is correct and proper, cannot be sustained.

¶157

6.25. As we have already noticed, the claim for enhancement of land value made in L.A.R.827/2009 was solely based on the re-fixation of land value made by this Court in Exts.A1 and A2 judgments. The reference court, solely relying on Ext.X1 report and the oral evidence of the Advocate

¶158

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶159

-31-

¶160

Commissioner as AW2, re-fixed the land value of the acquired land at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are, by the judgment dated₹ 31.7.2013. Thereafter, relying on the re-fixation of land value made in L.A.R.827/2009, the reference court by the judgment dated 17.8.2012 re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.675/2009 at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are, which is₹ pending in appeal in L.A.A.No.151/2014 filed by the State. Similarly, the reference court by the judgment dated 12.9.2012 re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.825/2009 at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are, which is pending in appeal in₹ L.A.A.No.732/2013 filed by the State. Based on the re-fixation of land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.675/2009, the reference court by the judgment dated 11.4.2013 re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.865/2009 at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are, which is pending in appeal in L.A.A.No.205/2014 filed by the State. The reference court has also re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.671/2009 at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are, by the₹ judgment dated 29.8.2014, stating that in a number of cases the

¶161

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -32-

¶162

land value of the acquired land under the same notification and category has already been enhanced to that extent. The judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.671/2009 is pending in appeal in L.A.A.No.546/2015 filed by the State.

¶163

6.26. In all other references (except in L.A.R.Nos.565/2009 and 679/2009), which are under challenge in the connected appeals/cross objection, the reference court re-fixed the land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are. In L.A.R.Nos.565/2009₹ and 679/2009 the reference court re-fixed the land value at the rate of 13,74,000/- per Are, which is also under challenge in₹ L.A.A.Nos.722/2013 and 785/2013 filed by the State.

¶164

6.27. The re-fixation of land value made by the reference court at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are in L.A.R.Nos.567/2009,₹ 572/2009 and 864/2009 is based on the land value re-fixed at that rate in the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.650/2009. In the said case, 0.30 Ares of land in Resurvey No.423/35 of Kudappanakunnu Village in

¶165

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 31.1.2005, for the purpose of widening of

¶166

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶167

-33-

¶168

Mannanthala-Kesavadasapuram Road. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,26,674/- per Are. Before₹ the reference court, the claimant claimed enhanced land value at the rate of ₹25,00,000/- per Cent (i.e., at the rate of ₹61,77,500/- per Are), relying on Ext.A1 judgment of the I Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram dated 25.10.2006 in L.A.R.No.12/3003, arising out of Section 4(1) notification dated 15.2.1999 for the purpose of widening of Kesavadasapuram-PMG road. In Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.12/2003, the reference court re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in that case at the rate of 6,10,493/- per Are, which land value was confirmed₹ by this Court in the judgment dated 27.8.2009 in L.A.A.No.1037/2007, arising out of that reference. Based on the land value so re-fixed in Ext.A1 judgment, the reference court refixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.650/2009 at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are, by giving 50% increase to the₹ land value re-fixed in L.A.R.No.12/2003 since there is a time lag

¶169

of more than 5 years between the two Section 4(1) notifications. 6.28. The re-fixation of land value by the reference court in

¶170

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶171

-34-

¶172

L.A.R.No.650/2009, at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are, was₹ under challenge in L.A.A.No.26/2013 filed by the State. By judgment dated 22.11.2013, this Court dismissed the said appeal filed by the State, declining interference on the land value refixed by the reference court at that rate. The said judgment of this court, after taking note of the dismissal of L.A.A.No.79/2013, etc. filed by the State in respect of re-fixation of land value at

¶173

that rate for comparable properties under the very same acquisition, was with notice to the claimants in L.A.R.No.650/2009, who entered appearance through lawyer, on receipt of notice in the C.M.Application for condonation of delay. As discernible form the Judge's papers in L.A.A.No.26/2013, the learned counsel for the claimants (the respondents in that L.A.A) entered appearance before this Court on 18.2.2013 by filing vakalath in L.A.A.No.26/2013. On 21.2.2013, this Court condoned the delay of 173 days in filing the appeal and thereafter, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage on 22.11.2013. In the absence of any challenge by either side, the land value re-fixed by the reference court at the rate of

¶174

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -35-

¶175

₹9,16,000/- per Are in L.A.R.No.650/2009 has attained finality. 6.29. As we have already noticed, the dismissal of L.A.A.No.26/2013 filed by the State was in view of the dismissal of L.A.A.No.79/2013 filed by the State against re-fixation of land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are in respect of another₹ property acquired under the very same acquisition. In L.A.A.No.79/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.830/2009 the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,69,906/- per₹ Are for the acquired land, which the reference court enhanced at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are, by giving 50% increase to the₹ land value re-fixed in L.A.R.No.12/2003, arising out of Section 4 (1) notification dated 15.2.1999 for the purpose of widening of Kesavadasapuram-PMG road, since there is a time lag of more than 5 years between the two Section 4(1) notifications. L.A.A.No.79/2013 filed by the State, ended in dismissal declining interference on the land value re-fixed by the reference court at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are. The dismissal of L.A.A.No.79/2013 at the admission stage, was also with notice to the claimants in L.A.R.No.830/2009, who entered appearance

¶176

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶177

-36-

¶178

through lawyer, on receipt of notice in the C.M.Application for condonation of delay. In the absence of any challenge by either side, the land value re-fixed by the reference court at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are in L.A.R.No.830/2009 has attained finality.

¶179

6.30. We also notice that, by the judgment dated 15.1.2016, in L.A.A.Nos.149/2013, 152/2013 and 464/2013 filed by the State, this Court declined interference on the land value re-fixed by the reference court at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are.₹ In L.A.A.Nos.149/2013 and 152/2013 arising out of L.A.R.Nos.649/2009 and 567/2009, the dismissal of the appeal was after condonation of the delay in filing the appeal with notice to the respective claimants (respondents in those appeals), after taking note of the dismissal of L.A.A.Nos.26/2013, 79/2013, and 662/2013 filed by the State in respect of re-fixation of land value at that rate for comparable properties under the very same acquisition. In the absence of any appeal filed by claimants in L.A.R.Nos.649/2009 and 567/2009 claiming enhanced land value,

¶180

the re-fixation of land value in those cases has also attained finality.

¶181

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶182

-37-

¶183

6.31. In some of the appeals filed by the State, which are included in this batch of appeals, the claimants have filed appeal/cross objection claiming enhanced land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are, solely relying on the judgment of the₹ reference court in L.A.R.No.827/2009 or the subsequent judgments of that court in L.A.R.Nos.675/2009, 825/2009, 865/2009 or 671/2009. Further, in all the cases included in this batch, the reference court re-fixed the land value at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are or 24,00,000/- per Are, as the case may be,₹ based on the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court or this Court in various judgments. In none of the cases included in this batch, the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court is with reference to any sale deed of the acquired land or of any lands adjacent thereto, having similar advantages. On a query made by this Court on this aspect of the matter, Sri.J.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the claimants in the connected cases, would submit that the claimants could not produce any such materials before the reference court since there are no sale transactions during the relevant period in respect of

¶184

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶185

-38-

¶186

the acquired land or of any land adjacent thereto, having similar advantages. Since the land acquisition was for the purpose of widening of 4-5 Kms. stretch of M.C.Road, from Mannanthala to Kesavadasapuram, we find it difficult to accept the said submission made on behalf of the claimants in theses cases.

¶187

6.32. Though the claimant in L.A.R.No.827/2009 would contend that, considering the potentiality of the acquired land in that reference, which is situated in a thickly populated commercial cum residential area on the side of M.C.Road, the refixation of land value by the reference court at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are, as against 2,94,444/- per Are awarded by₹ the Land Acquisition Officer, is perfectly legal, he has not chosen to produce any reliable materials, either before the reference court or before this Court, to sustain the re-fixation of land value so made by the reference court.

¶188

6.33. As held by the Apex Court in Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board's case (supra), in the matter of fixation of market value of the acquired land with reference to comparable sales, the sale should be of the land acquired or of

¶189

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶190

-39-

¶191

any land adjacent to the land acquired and the said land should possess similar advantages. Instead of relying on the land value of any land adjacent to the acquired land possessing similar advantages, the claimant is relying solely on Ext.A1 judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.1204/2010, in which case the acquired land is situated near Pattom Junction, on the side of PattomMarappalam-Kowdiar road. As held by the Apex Court in Kapil Mehra's case (supra), one of the relevant factors while fixing the market value of the acquired land is the market value of a land situated in the same locality adjacent to or very near to the acquired land. In that view of the matter, the land value re-fixed by this Court in Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.A.No.1204/2010 cannot be taken as the basis for fixation of land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009.

¶192

6.34. In the absence of any reliable materials, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board's case and Kapil Mehra's case referred to supra, which can merit a consideration in the matter of fixation of land value of the acquired land in

¶193

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶194

-40-

¶195

L.A.R.No.827/2009, the only course available to this Court is to re-fix the land value in the instant case based on the land value of ₹9,16,000/- per Are re-fixed by the reference court in connected references. This is more so when the specific stand taken by the claimants in L.A.R.No.827/2009 and connected cases is that, they could not produce any documents before the reference court since there are no sale transactions during the relevant period in respect of the acquired land or of any land adjacent thereto, having similar advantages.

¶196

6.35. In the instant appeal, i.e., in L.A.A.No.280/2013, arising out of L.A.R.No.827/2009, Section 4(1) notification was published on 19.11.2005 and the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is at the rate of 2,94,444/- per Are, for the₹ properties included in 'A' Category. On the other hand, in L.A.A.No.79/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.830/2009 the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,69,906/- per₹ Are for the acquired land falling under a different category, which land value has been re-fixed at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are by₹ the reference court. By the dismissal of L.A.A.No.79/2013, the

¶197

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶198

-41-

¶199

land value so re-fixed by the reference court has attained finality, in the absence of any challenge by either side. Considering the fact that, the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of ₹2,94,444/- per Are for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 is about 10% above the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of 2,69,906/- per Are in₹ L.A.R.No.827/2009, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the land

¶200

value for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 having an extent of 0.09 Ares at the rate of 10,07,600/- per Are. ₹ In the result, L.A.A.No.280/2013 filed by the State is disposed of refixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/₹ - per Are, together with interest and other statutory benefits. The judgment and decree of the reference court is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶201

L.A.A.No.86/2013 filed by the State and

¶202

L.A.A.No.238/2013 filed by the claimant arise out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.839/2009. In L.A.A.No.86/2013 filed by the State it is contended that the re-fixation of land value by the reference

¶203

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -42-

¶204

court is legally unsustainable. Per contra, in L.A.A.No.238/2013 the claimant is claiming enhanced land value at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are, relying on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.671/2009. The brief facts of the case has already been stated in Para.3.2. hereinbefore. Section 4(1) notification in the instant case was on 31.1.2005. For the acquired land having an extent of 0.08 Ares, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,69,900/- per Are. The₹ reference court, relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.684/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are. The₹ land value re-fixed by the reference court at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are in respect of properties covered by Section 4 (1) notification dated 31.1.2005 has already attained finality in L.A.A.Nos.26/2013 and 79/2013, in the absence of any challenge by either side. The judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.671/2009, relied on by the claimant in support of the claim for enhanced land value, is pending in appeal in L.A.A.No.546/2015 filed by the State. Further, the re-fixation of land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are in that reference₹

¶205

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -43-

¶206

was based on the land value re-fixed at that rate in other cases like L.A.R.No.827/2009. In this judgment, while re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.280/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.827/2009, we have affirmed the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court at the rate of 9,16,000/- per₹ Are and thereafter, re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/- per Are (10%₹ above the re-fixed land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are,₹ since the land falls under 'A' Category), as against the land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed by the reference₹ court. In the instant case the acquired property falls under a different category, for which the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is only 2,69,900/-. In the absence of any₹ reliable materials, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board's case and Kapil Mehra's case referred to supra, which can merit a consideration in the matter of fixation of land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.839/2009, the only course available for this Court is to re-fix the land value in the instant case based on

¶207

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -44-

¶208

the land value of 9,16,000/- per Are re-fixed by the reference₹ court in connected references which has attained finality in L.A.A.No.79/2013. In that view of the matter, we find absolutely no reason either to interfere with or enhance the land value re-fixed by the reference court for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.839/2009 at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are. ₹

¶209

In L.A.A.No.238/2013, the claimant has also

¶210

challenged the rejection of his case as to the total extent of the land acquired and also the claim for compensation for structures. Before the reference court, the claimant has not taken out a commission to identify or measure out the acquired land and also the remaining extent under his possession. After considering the materials on record, the reference court held that the claimant failed to establish his case as to the total extent of the acquired land in excess of 0.08 Ares of land. Regarding the compensation for structures, the reference court found that, admittedly the claimant removed the structures from the acquired land, with the permission of the requisitioning authority, for the construction of another building and hence the deduction of 1,07,525/- made by₹

¶211

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -45-

¶212

the Land Acquisition Officer is legal. In the absence of any vitiating circumstances, we find absolutely no grounds to interfere with the reasoning of the reference court in rejecting his claim under these heads. In the result, L.A.A.No.86/2013 filed by the State and L.A.A.No.238/2013 filed by the claimant are dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.839/2009.

¶213

L.A.A.No.229/2013 filed by the State and L.A.A.No.637/2013 filed by the claimant arise out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.653/2009. In L.A.A.No.229/2013 filed by the State it is contended that the re-fixation of land value by the reference court is legally unsustainable. Per contra, in L.A.A.No.637/2013 the claimant is claiming enhanced land value at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are, relying on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.825/2009. The brief facts of the case has already been stated in Para.3.3. hereinbefore. Section 4(1) notification in the instant case was on 31.1.2005. For the acquired land having an extent of 0.16 Ares, the Land Acquisition

¶214

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶215

-46-

¶216

Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,69,906/- per Are. The₹ reference court, relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.557/2009 re-fixed the land value at 9,16,000/- per Are. The judgment of₹ the reference court in L.A.R.No.825/2009, relied on by the claimant in support of the claim for enhanced land value, is pending in appeal in L.A.A.No.732/2013 filed by the State. Further, the re-fixation of land value at the rate of 24,00,000/-₹

¶217

per Are in that reference was based on the land value re-fixed at that rate in L.A.R.No.827/2009. In this judgment, while re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.280/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.827/2009, we have affirmed the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court at the rate of 9,16,000/-₹ per Are and thereafter, re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/- per Are₹ (10% above the re-fixed land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per₹ Are, since the land falls under 'A' Category), as against land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed by the reference₹ court. In the instant case the acquired property falls under a different category, for which the land value awarded by the Land

¶218

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶219

-47-

¶220

Acquisition Officer is only 2,69,906/-. The re-fixation of land₹ value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are for similar lands has₹ attained finality in L.A.A.No.79/2013. In that view of the matter, and also for the reasons stated in Para.7 hereinbefore, we find absolutely no reason either to interfere with or enhance the land value re-fixed by the reference court for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.635/2009 at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are.₹ In the result, L.A.A.No.229/2013 filed by the State and L.A.A.No.637/2013 filed by the claimant are dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.653/2009.

¶221

L.A.A.No.384/2013 filed by the State and C.O.No.54/2013 filed by the claimant arise out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.577/2009. In L.A.A.No.384/2013 filed by the State it is contended that the refixation of land value by the reference court is legally unsustainable. Per contra, in C.O.No.54/2013 the claimant is claiming enhanced land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per₹ Are, relying on the judgment of the reference court in

¶222

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶223

-48-

¶224

L.A.R.Nos.675/2009 and 827/2009. The brief facts of the case has already been stated in Para.3.4. hereinbefore. Section 4(1) notification in the instant case was on 31.1.2005. For the acquired land having an extent of 1.13 Ares, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,94,443/- per Are. The₹ reference court, relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.557/2009 re-fixed the land value at 9,16,000/- per Are. The judgment of₹ the reference court in L.A.R.No.675/2009, relied on by the claimant in support of the claim for enhanced land value, is pending in appeal in L.A.A.No.151/2014 filed by the State. Further, the re-fixation of land value at the rate of 24,00,000/-₹ per Are in that reference was based on the land value re-fixed at that rate in L.A.R.No.827/2009. In this judgment, while re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.280/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.827/2009, we have affirmed the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court the rate of 9,16,000/-₹ per Are and thereafter, re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/- per Are₹ (10% above the re-fixed land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per₹

¶225

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶226

-49-

¶227

Are, since the land falls under 'A' Category), as against the land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed by the₹ reference court. In the instant case, for the acquired property the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is 2,94,443/-₹ per Are. In that view of the matter, and also for the reasons stated in Paras.6.33 and 6.34 hereinbefore, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the land value for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.577/2009 having an extent of 1.13 Ares at the rate of ₹10,07,600/- per Are. In the result, L.A.A.No.384/2013 filed by the State is dismissed and C.O.No.54/2013 filed by the claimant is disposed of re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.577/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/₹ - per Are, together with interest, statutory benefits and proportionate cost. The judgment and decree of the reference court is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶228

L.A.A.No.722/2013 filed by the State arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.659/2009. In L.A.A.No.722/2013 it is contended that the re-fixation of land value by the reference court is legally

¶229

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶230

-50-

¶231

unsustainable. The brief facts of the case has already been stated in Para.3.5. hereinbefore. Section 4(1) notification in the instant case was on 20.1.2006. For the acquired land having an extent of

¶232

0.62 Ares under 'C' Category, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,45,369/- per Are. The reference₹ court, re-fixed the land value at 13,74,000/- per Are, by₹ awarding 50% increase to the enhanced land value at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are re-fixed for 'D' Category land in Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.650/2009. Though the claimant relied on the land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed in₹ L.A.R.No.675/2009, the reference court found that the acquired property in that reference is 'A' Category land, which have more potentiality and importance than 'C' Category land. The land value re-fixed by the reference court at the rate of 9,16,000/-₹ per Are in respect of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.650/2009 has attained finality, since L.A.A.No.26/2013 filed by the State ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 22.11.2013, declining interference on the land value so re-fixed by the reference court. Before the reference court, the claimant relied on the judgment

¶233

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶234

-51-

¶235

of the reference court in L.A.R.No.675/2009 in support of the claim for enhanced land value, which is pending in appeal in L.A.A.No.151/2014 filed by the State. Further, the re-fixation of land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are in that reference₹ was based on the land value re-fixed at that rate in L.A.R.No.827/2009. In this judgment, while re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.280/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.827/2009, we have affirmed the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court the rate of 9,16,000/- per₹ Are and thereafter, re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/- per Are (10%₹ above the re-fixed land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are,₹ since the said property falls under 'A' Category), as against the land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed by the₹ reference court. In the instant case the acquired land falls under 'C' Category, the land value of which can be re-fixed at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are, at 5% above the re-fixed land value at₹ the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are for 'D' Category land. In that view₹ of the matter, and also for the reasons stated in Paras.6.33 and

¶236

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶237

-52-

¶238

6.34 hereinbefore, we re-fix the land value for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.659/2009 having an extent of 0.62 Ares at the rate of ₹9,61,800/- per Are (5% above the re-fixed land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are for 'D' Category land).₹ In the result, L.A.A.No.722/2013 filed by the State is disposed of re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.659/2009 at the rate of ₹9,61,800/per Are, together with interest and other statutory benefits. The judgment and decree of the reference court is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶239

L.A.A.No.732/2013 filed by the State arises out of the

¶240

judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.825/2009. In L.A.A.No.732/2013 it is contended that the re-fixation of land value by the reference court is legally unsustainable. The brief facts of the case has already been stated in Para.3.6. hereinbefore. Section 4(1) notification in the instant case was on 31.1.2005. For the acquired land having an extent of 0.03 Ares, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,94,433/- per Are. The reference court, relying on the₹ judgment in L.A.R.No.827/2009 re-fixed the land value at

¶241

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶242

-53-

¶243

₹24,00,000/- per Are. In this judgment, while re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.280/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.827/2009, we have affirmed the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court the rate of 9,16,000/- per₹ Are and thereafter, re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/- per Are (10%₹ above the re-fixed land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are,₹ since the said property falls under 'A' Category), as against land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed by the₹ reference court. In the instant case the acquired property the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is 2,94,433/-₹ per Are. In that view of the matter, and also for the reasons stated in Paras.6.33 and 6.34 hereinbefore, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the land value for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.825/2009 having an extent of 0.03 Ares at the rate of ₹10,07,600/- per Are. In the result, L.A.A.No.723/2013 filed by the State is disposed of re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.825/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/₹ - per Are, together with interest and other statutory benefits. The judgment

¶244

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶245

-54-

¶246

and decree of the reference court is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶247

L.A.A.No.785/2013 filed by the State arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.565/2009. In L.A.A.No.785/2013 it is contended that the re-fixation of land value by the reference court is legally unsustainable. The brief facts of the case has already been stated in Para.3.7. hereinbefore. Section 4(1) notification in the instant case was on 20.1.2006. For the acquired land having an extent of 0.17 Ares under 'C' Category, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,45,369/- per Are. The reference₹ court, re-fixed the land value at 13,74,000/- per Are, by₹ awarding 50% increase to the enhanced land value at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are re-fixed for 'D' Category land in Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.650/2009. Though the claimant relied on the land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed in₹ L.A.R.No.675/2009, the reference court found that the acquired property in that reference is 'A' Category land, which have more potentiality and importance than 'C' Category land. The land

¶248

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶249

-55-

¶250

value re-fixed by the reference court at the rate of 9,16,000/-₹ per Are in respect of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.650/2009 has attained finality, since L.A.A.No.26/2013 filed by the State ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 22.11.2013, declining interference on the land value so re-fixed by the reference court. Before the reference court, the claimant relied on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.675/2009 in support of the

¶251

claim for enhanced land value, which is pending in appeal in L.A.A.No.151/2014 filed by the State. Further, the re-fixation of land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are in that reference₹ was based on the land value re-fixed at that rate in L.A.R.No.827/2009. In this judgment, while re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.280/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.827/2009, we have affirmed the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court the rate of 9,16,000/- per₹ Are and thereafter, re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/- per Are (10%₹

¶252

above the re-fixed land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are,₹ since the said property falls under 'A' Category), as against the

¶253

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶254

-56-

¶255

land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed by the₹ reference court. In the instant case the acquired land falls under 'C' Category, the land value of which can be re-fixed at the rate of 9,61,800/- per Are at 5% above the re-fixed land value at the₹ rate of 9,16,000/- per Are for 'D' Category land. In that view of₹ the matter, and also for the reasons stated in Paras.6.33 and 6.34 hereinbefore, we re-fix the land value for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.565/2009 having an extent of 0.17 Ares at the rate of ₹9,61,800/- per Are (5% above the re-fixed land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are for 'D' Category land).₹ In the result, L.A.A.No.785/2013 filed by the State is disposed of re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.565/2009 at the rate of ₹9,61,800/per Are, together with interest and other statutory benefits. The judgment and decree of the reference court is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶256

L.A.A.No.176/2014 filed by the claimant arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.864/2009. Relying on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.Nos.675/2009, 827/2009 and 865/2009 the

¶257

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶258

-57-

¶259

claimant is claiming enhanced land value at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are. The brief facts of the case has already been stated in Para.3.8. hereinbefore. Section 4(1) notification in the instant case was on 19.11.2005. For the acquired land having an extent of 0.90 Ares, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,26,674/- per Are. The reference court,₹ relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.650/2009 re-fixed the land value at 9,16,000/- per Are. Now the claimant is claiming₹ enhance land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are, relying₹ on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.Nos.675/2009, 827/2009 and 865/2009. In L.A.A.No.675/2009 the reference court re-fixed land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are,₹ relying on the judgment in L.A.R.Nos.827/2009. The judgment in L.A.R.No.827/2009 is under challenge in L.A.A.No.280/2013 filed by the State. The judgment in L.A.R.No.675/2009 is also under challenge in L.A.A.No.151/2014 filed by the State. In L.A.R.No.865/2009 the reference court re-fixed the land value at

¶260

the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are relying on the judgment in₹ L.A.R.No.675/2009. The judgment in L.A.R.No.865/2009 is also

¶261

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶262

-58-

¶263

under challenge in L.A.A.No.205/2014 filed by the State. Further, the re-fixation of land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are₹ in those references was based on the land value re-fixed at that rate in L.A.R.No.827/2009. In this judgment, while re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.280/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.827/2009, we have affirmed the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court the rate of 9,16,000/- per₹ Are and thereafter, re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/- per Are (10%₹ above the re-fixed land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are,₹ since the said property falls under 'A' Category), as against the land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed by the₹ reference court. In the instant case the acquired property falls under a different category, for which the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is only 2,26,000/- per Are. The re-₹ fixation of land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are for₹ similar lands has attained finality in L.A.A.No.26/2013. In that view of the matter, and also for the reasons stated in Para.7 hereinbefore, we find absolutely no reason enhance the land

¶264

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶265

-59-

¶266

value re-fixed by the reference court for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.864/2009 at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are.₹ In the result, L.A.A.No.176/2014 filed by the claimant is dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.864/2009.

¶267

L.A.A.No.354/2014 filed by the claimant arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.572/2009. In this appeal the claimant is claiming enhanced land value for the acquired land. The brief facts of the case has already been stated in Para.3.10. hereinbefore. Section 4(1) notification in the instant case was on 19.11.2005. For the acquired land having an extent of 0.35 Ares, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of 2,26,674/- per Are. The₹ reference court, relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.650/2009 re-fixed the land value at ₹9,16,000/- per Are. In L.A.A.No.354/2014 the claimant is claiming a total enhancement in land value by 4,00,000/- for 0.35 Are of land. The reference₹ court, relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.650/2009 re-fixed the land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are. The land value re-₹

¶268

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶269

-60-

¶270

fixed by the reference court at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are in₹ L.A.A.No.650/2009 has already attained finality in L.A.A.No.26/2013, in the absence of any challenge by either side. In this judgment, while re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.280/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.827/2009, we have affirmed the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are and thereafter, re-fixed the₹ land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/- per Are (10% above the re-fixed land value at₹ the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are, since the said property falls₹ under 'A' Category), as against land value at the rate of ₹24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed by the reference court. In the instant case the acquired property falls under a different category, for which the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is only 2,26,674/- per Are. The re-fixation of₹ land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are for similar lands has₹ attained finality in L.A.A.No.26/2013. Though the claimant has also challenged the categorisation of the acquired land by the Land Acquisition Officer, we find that the claimant has no such

¶271

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases -61-

¶272

case before the reference court, since no such case was put forward in the claim petition. In that view of the matter, and also for the reasons stated in Para.7 hereinbefore, we find absolutely no reason enhance the land value re-fixed by the reference court for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.572/2009 at the rate of ₹9,16,000/- per Are. In the result, L.A.A.No.354/2014 filed by the claimant is dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.572/2009.

¶273

L.A.A.No.766/2014 filed by the claimant arises out of the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.567/2009. In this appeal the claimant is claiming enhanced land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are, relying₹ on the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.Nos.675/2009. The brief facts of the case has already been stated in Para.3.9. hereinbefore. Section 4(1) notification in the instant case was on 31.1.2005. For the acquired land having an extent of 0.14 Ares, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of ₹2,45,369/- per Are. The reference court, relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.650/2009 re-fixed the land value at

¶274

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶275

-62-

¶276

₹9,16,000/- per Are. In the judgment in L.A.A.No.675/2009, the reference court re-fixed land value at the rate of 24,00,000/-₹ per Are, relying on the judgment in L.A.R.Nos.827/2009. The judgment in L.A.R.No.827/2009 is under challenge in L.A.A.No.280/2013 filed by the State. The judgment in L.A.R.No.675/2009 is also under challenge in L.A.A.No.151/2014 filed by the State. In this judgment, while re-fixing the land value of the acquired land in L.A.A.No.280/2013 arising out of L.A.R.No.827/2009, we have affirmed the re-fixation of land value made by the reference court the rate of 9,16,000/- per₹ Are and thereafter, re-fixed the land value of the acquired land in L.A.R.No.827/2009 at the rate of 10,07,600/- per Are (10%₹ above the re-fixed land value at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are,₹ since the said property falls under 'A' Category), as against the land value at the rate of 24,00,000/- per Are re-fixed by the₹ reference court. In the instant case the acquired property falls under a different category, for which the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is only 2,45,369/- per Are. In that₹ view of the matter, and also for the reasons stated in Para.7

¶277

L.A.A.No.86/13 & Con.Cases

¶278

-63-

¶279

hereinbefore, we find absolutely no reason enhance the land value re-fixed by the reference court for the acquired land in L.A.R.No.567/2009 at the rate of 9,16,000/- per Are.₹ In the result, L.A.A.No.766/2014 filed by the claimant is dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.567/2009.

¶280

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON , JUDGE

¶281

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶282

dsn

¶283

True copy

¶284

P.S.to Judge

State of Kerala v. K.Maniyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. K.Maniyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Remadevi Vs Sujatha L

Dr.Alina Arun Kanattu Vs the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges

Mr. Ayoli Abdulla Vs M/S. Meezan Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Union of India Vs P. Rajumon

Superintendent of Post Office,Thiruvalla Vs C.P. Santhamman and Another

Union of India Vs Smt.Vijaya Sukumar