IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 1319 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.222/1999 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S)/ RESPONDENT NO.1 ----------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S)/ CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENT NO.2 ---------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA MENON, W/O.LATE DR.M.R.S.MENON, TC 2/1025, PAZHAYAROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VINOD.S. MENON, S/O.LATE DR.M.R.S.MENON, TC 2/1025, PAZHAYAROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VIJU.S.MENON, S/O.LATE DR.M.R.S.MENON, TC 2/1025, PAZHAYAROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VIPIN.S.MENON, S/O.LATE DR.M.R.S.MENON, TC 2/1025, PAZHAYAROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (MRS.CHANDRIKA MENON IS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF CLAIMANTS NO.2 TO 4). 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS, KOCHU VELI, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R5 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R5 SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R1 TO 4 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, ALONG WITH L.A.A.NO.1236/2007 & CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos.1236 & 1319/2007 & 405,623,1258 2471/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Sri.K.Anand, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority vehemently requested that these cases may be referred to the daily adalat, which is being conducted in this court under the auspicious of the High Court Legal Service Committee. We did not agree, since we are of the view that the possibilities of a settlement by negotiation can be explored by ourselves. 2. All these are appeals preferred by the Government and they pertain to acquisition of land in Kadakaampilly village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk for the purpose of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. The relevant Section 4 (1) notification was published on 24/9/1998. The Land Acquisition Officer relying on Exts.R24, R33 and R34 basis documents, fixed land value at Rs.36,976/- per Are corresponding to Rs.14,970/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, the only document which was LAA.No.1319/2007 & others 2 produced by the claimants was Ext.A1 sale deed No.783/97 of the Sub Registry, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.A1 was certainly a pre notification document executed two years prior to the promulgation of relevant Section 4(1) notification. But, the Reference Court did not become inclined to place reliance on Ext.A1 since it became evident that there was no comparison between Ext.A1 property and the properties under acquisition. A1 was the property enjoying direct frontage of the main road whereas the acquired properties did not enjoy frontage of any proper road. Those properties enjoyed the frontage of only a narrow lane. After rejecting Ext.A1, what the court below has done is to make a guess as to what could have been the correct market value of the acquired property at the relevant time and refix the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.25,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs.61750/- per Are. In these appeals, the Government challenges the market value refixed by the court as excessive. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader, Sri.K.Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority and LAA.No.1319/2007 & others 3 Sri.R.T.Pradeep, learned counsel for the claimants in all these cases. 4. Sri.Anand, was permitted to make submissions first and he would submit that the financial position of the requisitioning authority is precarious. The requisitioning authority finds it extremely difficult to honour the commitments under the impugned decree. He submitted that it was not at its free volition that the company went in for acquiring the properties. The company became compelled to acquire the properties in the wake of orders passed by the court directing the company to make pollution control arrangements in the premises of the company. The arrangements are causing the company heavily and the total expenditure to be incurred by the company for complying with the directions of this court regarding the pollution control arrangements will come to Rs.256 Crores. Sri.Anand further submitted that it is merely on guess work that the market value has been refixed by the learned Sub Judge. Ext.A1 having been rejected, the court below ought to have approved the award of the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis that there was no legal evidence to support any enhancement. All the LAA.No.1319/2007 & others 4 submissions of Sri.Anand were supported by Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader. He pointed out that certain mistakes have been crept into the judgment while mentioning the dates in the context of the statutory benefits (solatium) under Section 23(2) of the Act. 5. All the submissions of Sri.Anand were resisted by Sri.R.T.Pradeep. He submitted that though it is true that the properties under acquisition were not being put to any use by the owners, the properties had considerable developmental potentialities. He submitted that several institutions and establishments like KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, have all come up very near to the properties under acquisition. All these are aspects which adds to the value of the properties under acquisition. It cannot be said that Ext.A1 was completely rejected by the court below. The court below had kept Ext.A1 also in mind and that is why the present rate of 25,000/- is fixed. The rate fixed is by no standards excessive. 6. In view of the financial difficulties of the requisitioning authority voiced before us by Sri.Ananad, we explored the LAA.No.1319/2007 & others 5 possibility of having the issue settled amicably between the parties. We suggested to the claimants that they forego fifty percent of the amount due to them under the decree by way of statutory interest under Section 28. The claimants were unwilling. They were not prepared to make concessions beyond total of Rs.2 Lakhs per claimant. All our endeavors failed and hence we proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 6. Having gone through the impugned judgment what we find is that the court below was not inclined to place reliance on Ext.A1, the only tangible item of evidence produced by the claimants in support of their claim for enhanced land value. What the court below had done is to refix the market value by doing guess work. Of course, as submitted by Sri.R.T.Pradeep, Ext.A1 would also have been in the mind of the learned Sub Judge. We do not think that it is a good guess, which has been made by the learned Subordinate Judge. As already indicated, there is no comparison between Ext.A1 property and the properties under acquisition. As on the date of Section 4(1) notification, the properties under acquisition did not enjoy proper road frontage. The properties under acquisition as on LAA.No.1319/2007 & others 6 that date were lying as barren lands. Of course, they had potentialities for development and taking those potentialities into account there was justification for enhancement, but, in our opinion, not to the extent granted by the learned Sub Judge. We feel that on the evidence available on record i.e. the oral evidence of AW1 and Ext.A1, on making a correct guess of the market value of the acquired property, the market value of the properties under acquisition can be refixed at Rs.22,000/- per cent. 7. The appeals stands allowed to that extent. In modification of the market value fixed under the impugned judgment, the market value of the properties under acquisition is refixed at Rs.22,000/- per cent. It is needless to mention that the claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible to them under Section 23(2), 23 (A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation by virtue of our refixation of the compensation under this judgment. It is also clarified that the claimants/respondents will be entitled for the benefits under Section 23(1A) at 12% only during the period from the date of relevant section 4(1) notification and the date of award or the LAA.No.1319/2007 & others 7 date of taking possession whichever is earlier. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk