IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 LA.App..No. 768 of 2005 ----------------------------- LAR.19/2000 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT (SUPPL. No.2) : -------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC RESPONDENT/ 1ST RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: ---------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. PARI ANEESUFAHMAN, S/O. PARI PATHUMMAKUTTY, HAJIYARAPALLY, MALAPPURAM, AUTHORIZED AGENT OF PARI PATHUMMAKUTTY, HAJIYARAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI. BABU S. NAIR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2008, ALONG WITH L.A.A. 805/2005 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos. 768, 805, 816, 825 & 924 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The second respondent in L.A.R.No.151 of 1999 and L.A.R.Nos. 19, 28, 32 and 47 of 2000 is the appellant in all the five cases, jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment dated 30.11.2004. The acquired properties in the above reference cases belonged to different parties. Different parcels of land belonging to them are acquired for the purpose of setting up an Industrial Growth Centre. Section 4(1) notification was published on 14.09.1995. The properties are categorized as categories A to D. The properties covered by these reference cases are included in category D. 2. Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.2,940/- per cent, which was enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per cent by the reference court. The second respondent-requisitioning authority has filed these appeals challenging the quantum fixed by the reference court. According to them, the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was in accordance with the market value L.A.A.768/05 & conn. cases 2 prevailing during the relevant time and after perusing the documents relating to similar properties, and therefore interference by the reference court without any materials is illegal. The court below also committed grave error in relying on Exhibit A3 sale deed which is not similar and similarly situated with that of the acquired land. 3. In support of the claim for enhanced compensation, claimants examined AW1 to AW5 and produced Exhibits A1 to A7. The respondents examined one witness as RW1 and also produced Exhibits B1 to B5 documents. Commission report is marked as Exhibit C1. 4. The court below after discussing the relevancy of Exhibits A1 to A7 documents, took the view that Exhibits A1, A2 and A4 to A7 documents produced by the claimants in support of their claim for enhanced compensation are not similar and similarly situated properties and therefore, no reliance can be placed on them. The court below placed reliance on Exhibit A3 sale deed. The said transaction took place in the year 1987 and the property is valued at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per cent. The extent of the property is only 7 cents. Therefore, the court below refixed the value of that property by reducing 20% from the price L.A.A.768/05 & conn. cases 3 shown in the document. Thus the reference court refixed the value of Exhibit A3 property at the rate of Rs.2,800/- per cent. Then the reference court finding that Section 4(1) notification is of the year 1995, that is after 8½ years, increased the land value at the rate of 5% per annum which according to the court is reasonable for the purpose of fixation of market value of the acquired land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. Thus a total increase of 42.5% for 8½ years has to be added in order to arrive at the market value per cent at Rs.4,000/-. 5. As stated earlier, the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.2,940/- was enhanced by the reference court and refixed at Rs.4,000/-. The increase in land value granted by the reference court itself is at the bottom-end, therefore, reasonable and just. We find no merit in the appeals. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the reference court has awarded enhancement in land value for the entire extent of the land and the area covered by improvements has not been deducted. The judgment under appeal does not discuss these matters. It is also submitted that L.A.A.768/05 & conn. cases 4 the Land Acquisition Officer excluded the area covered by improvements and limited compensation to the remaining extent. It is made clear that the enhanced land value at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per cent will be limited to the area for which compensation has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer on centage basis. All the interlocutory applications for stay are dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. smp KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ L.A.A.Nos. 768, 805, 816, 825 & 924 OF 2005 J U D G M E N T 02.04.2008