IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 702 of 2010(A) ------------------------------- LAR.5/2002 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R. ---------------------------------------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, CHADAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & 1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ABDUL KHADER ABDUL SALAM, PARUTHI POIKA PUTHENVEEDU, POOMKODE MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011 A/W LAA.756/10 & CON. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.702, 703, 196, 756 & 757 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J All these appeals preferred by the Requisitioning Authority, Chadayamangalam Grama Panchayat pertain to acquisition of paddy fields and reclaimed paddy fields in Chadayamangalam village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 25/05/99 for the purpose of constructing a playground for a school belonging to the Panchayat. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the lands into three. For the wetlands lying close to Chadayamangalam - Kadakkal road the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 8,472/- per Are. Included in category-2 were wetlands lying away from the road and for these wetlands the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate L. A. A. No.702/10 & con. cases -2- of ` 1,698/- per Are. Included in category-3 were wetlands lying far away from the road and for these lands he awarded value at the rate of ` 1,554/- per Are. The Reference Court in the first instance on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties and relying mainly on Ext.A1 sale deed re-fixed the value of property in category-1 and category-2 uniformly at ` 20,000/- per cent. For the properties in category-3, the value was re-fixed at ` 15,000/- per cent. The Requisitioning Authority were not parties to the first round trial before the Reference Court. The Government preferred appeals as L.A.A Nos.127/06, 706/08, 736/08 and 774/08 against the award of the Reference Court. The Requisitioning Authority instituted WPC.25150/05 against the awards. This Court by judgment dated 23/06/08 set aside the awards of the Reference Court except award in LAR No.2/02 and remanded the LAR cases to the Reference Court for a fresh decision. In L. A. A. No.702/10 & con. cases -3- the meanwhile, LAA.1175/08 which the Government had preferred against the award in L.A.R.2/02 was dismissed by this Court on the ground of delay. Thus, the original award passed by the Reference Court stood confirmed in LAR.2/02. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge, it appears, proceeded with the trial of all the LAR cases including LAR.2/02 on the basis that as the common judgment had been set aside a re-trial in LAR.2/02 is also justified. The Requisitioning Authority raised objections relying on the judgment in LAA.1175/08. When the Requisitioning Authority noticed that the objection was not being entertained by the Reference Court they approached this Court by filing W.P.C.24770/09. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition, however, permitting the Panchayat to seek a review of judgment in LAA.1175/08. It appears that on some technical reasons, the review was not entertained by this Court and it L. A. A. No.702/10 & con. cases -4- is under such circumstances that LAA.196/10 was filed after obtaining leave of this Court. 3. Before the arguments in these case commenced, we expressed some doubt as to the maintainability of LAA.196/10. It was conceded by all parties including the claimants that as this Court is deciding the market value of the properties involved in all the other cases, considering the appeals preferred by the Requisitioning Authority, it is convenient for the claimants in LAR.2/02 that the issue is finally decided by this Court itself. This is why we are proceeding to decide LAA.196/10 along with the other appeals. 4. It was very extensive submissions which was addressed before us by Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned counsel for the appellant/Requisitioning Authority, Sri.B.Suresh Kumar and Sri.Alexander George for the L. A. A. No.702/10 & con. cases -5- claimants/respondents. Sri.Rajendran submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in granting enhancement at several times the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer after discarding the documents produced by the claimants, particularly Ext.A1. According to him, though to a certain extent guess work is permissible, while determining the market value of lands no guess can be said to be a good guess unless it is founded on some legal evidence on record. The Mahazars at best would show that the properties were situated at a distance of 300 metres. The nearness to the main junction by itself will not increase the value of the property. Value of the property under acquisition is to be decided on the basis of values reflected in sale deeds. Ext.A1 is not admissible at all. Exts.B1 and B2 though produced by the appellants were produced only for the purpose of showing that Ext.A1 is an artificial document. L. A. A. No.702/10 & con. cases -6- Ext.B1 reflects a value of ` 3,556/- per Are only. The documents discussed by the awarding officer in his notes to award itself reflects values of less than ` 4,000/- per Are. The rate presently fixed is excessive. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, Sri.Suresh Kumar and Sri.Alexander George however would support the impugned award. According to them, the reasons stated for the learned Subordinate Judge for discarding Ext.A1 are not satisfactory. Ext.A1 reflects a value of ` 24,000/- per cent. Ext.A1 is three years pre-notification. In fact, what the learned Subordinate Judge should have done was to make additions for passage of time and re-fix the market value accordingly. Exts.B1 and B2 were documents produced by the Requisitioning Authority themselves. Once documents are produced, the court is bound to consider them irrespective of the question as to who produced the same as L. A. A. No.702/10 & con. cases -7- they constituted evidence in the case. The appreciation of evidence by the learned Subordinate Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, there is no warrant at all for interference. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick survey of the evidence available in the case. We approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having held that there is scope for categorising the properties under acquisition into two categories only namely, properties which are reclaimed lands lying adjacent to the roads and properties which are cultivable paddy lands situated away from the road. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, the ratio between values of these two properties is 10:8. At the very outset, we may find that the ratio fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge between values of these two L. A. A. No.702/10 & con. cases -8- categories of properties is not correct. There is marked difference between the properties in category 1 and 2. While properties in category 1 were reclaimed lands with coconut trees and other improvements situated thereon close to the main road in the locality, the properties in category 2 were purely wetlands under paddy cultivation without any road access. According to us, the correct ratio to be applied by the learned Subordinate Judge was 10:6.75 or 100:67.5 and not 100:80. 7. We shall proceed now to fix the correct market value of the properties included in category-1 under the impugned judgment i.e. properties enjoying the frontage of Chadayamangalam - Kadakkal road and were reclaimed in nature. Reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for discarding Ext.A1 were good as already stated. Ultimately is on an evaluation of the entirety of the evidence which came L. A. A. No.702/10 & con. cases -9- on record adduced by the parties prior to the remand and subsequent to the remand that the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the value of the properties in the above category at ` 10,000/- per cent. Chadayamangalm junction as noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge is a very important junction on M.C. Road which is considered to be the second most important thoroughfare in the State. The distance from the above junction and the properties in category No.1 was just 300 metres. Though the properties in category No.1 were not abutting the M.C. Road they were abutting the Chadayamangalam - Kadakkal road. Though in the basic records the property was described as wetland the ground reality was that at the time of acquisition they had been reclaimed and yielding coconut trees were standing on the same. In short those properties were almost as good as dry lands. L. A. A. No.702/10 & con. cases -10- 8. Having made a re-appraisal of the entire evidence ourselves, we are of the view that the rate of ` 10,000/- per cent fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is not excessive. We approve the award of ` 10,000/- per cent for the properties involved in LAR.4/02 corresponding to LAA.756/10. It is not in dispute that the properties in LAR.2/02 was identical to the properties in LAR.4/02. This means that the judgment and decree impugned in LAA.196/10 (the decree in LAR.2/02) will stand set aside and the market value of the land under acquisition in that case will stand re-fixed at ` 10,000/- per cent. 9. Though not in so many words, the learned Subordinate Judge has re-fixed the value of properties in category No.2 relying on the rate fixed by him for properties in category No.1. As already found by us the correct ratio to be applied is 100:67.5. Applying the above ratio we set aside L. A. A. No.702/10 & con. cases -11- the judgments and decrees in LAR Nos.1/02, 3/02, 5/02 and re-fix the value of the lands involved in these cases at ` 6,750/- per cent. All the appeals are allowed as above. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. We clarify that on the compensation re-fixed under this judgment the claimants/respondents will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-