IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 LA.App..No. 455 of 2005() ------------------------- LAR.13/2002 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT: 1ST RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN RESPONDENTS:/CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- 1. NELLY GHOSH, CHARANKATTU, CHERTHALA SOOUGHT VILLAGE. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH-R2 SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. -R1 SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008 ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1203 OF 2007 AND LAA NO. 546 OF 2008, THE COURT ON 19.3.2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NOS. 455 OF 2005 ,1203 OF 2007 & 546 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The respondents, namely, State of Kerala and the Managing Director, Kerala State Industrial Corporation in L.A.R. No.13 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala and the claimant in L.A.R. No.119 of 2002 before the same court are the appellants herein. The properties are acquired for the purpose of Industrial Growth Centre, Pallippuram. Section 4(1) notification in both the reference cases was published on 24.1.1997. The extent of property acquired in L.A.R. No.119 of 2002 is 28.33 Ares in Survey No.185/11A of Pallippuram Village. A similar extent of property was acquired in L.A.R. No.13 of 2002 in Survey No. 72/9A1-1 of the same village. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of Rs.10,950/- per Are and Rs.11,547/- per Are respectively. In support of their claim for enhanced compensation, the claimant in L.A.R. No. 13 of 2002 was examined as AW.1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. Ext.R1 was marked on the side of the appellant. Ext.X1 is the commission report. In L.A.R. No.119 of 2002, the claimant L.A.A.NOS.455/2005 & Connected Cases 2 examined AWs.1 and 2 and marked Exts.A1 to A9(a). No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. 2. The reference court refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.19,760/- per Are in L.A.R. No.119 of 2002 and at the rate of Rs.29,640/- per Are in L.A.R. No.13 of 2002. In L.A.R. No.119 of 2002, the reference court relied on Ext.A2 sale deed for the purpose of fixing the market value. The reference court also relied on the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Dr. Suseela Varghese and Others, 1999(2) K.L.J. 594 for the proposition that in the absence of any transaction or sale of land on the date of notification, courts would be justified in relying upon the transaction or sale nearer to the date of notification. The reference court was of the view that the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer does not represent the market value as on the date of notification and that the acquired properties are more valuable than the property covered by the basic document. The property covered by Ext.A2 relied on in L.A.R. No.119 of 2002 having an extent of 13 cents was sold for Rs.2,63,000/-, that is, Rs.20,230/- per cent. The date of notification in that case was 24.4.1997. There is only three months' gap between the date of Section 4(1) notification and the date of Ext.A2 sale deed. On a L.A.A.NOS.455/2005 & Connected Cases 3 comparison of the acquired land with the property covered by Ext.A2, the reference court held that the land value for the acquired land can be fixed giving appropriate deduction in the land value mentioned in the above document. 3. The claimant contended that her property is a portion of a larger extent of land lying as a single compact plot along with the remaining properties which were also acquired under the very same notification. L.A.R. Nos. 116 of 2002 and 31 of 2003 are the other acquisition reference cases. The claimant further contended that the entire property is having road frontage of 100 metres and, therefore, the categorisation of the acquired land as one without road frontage is wrong and unjust. According to the claimant, the entire property having an extent of 63.54 Ares has to be categorised as property having road frontage and that the land value has to be fixed including the entire plot in Category No.1. 4. We find that the property involved in the above three reference cases is a vast extent of 63.54 Ares. Categorisation of the entire property as Category No.1, as claimed by the claimant will not be proper. Portions of property lying on the rear side of a big plot having road frontage cannot L.A.A.NOS.455/2005 & Connected Cases 4 be treated as properties having road frontage and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the categorisation made by the Land Acquisition Officer. At the same time, while fixing the land value of the said property, the reference court should have kept in mind the value given for the rest of the property categorised as having road frontage. Considering the locational importance of the acquired land in L.A.R. No.119 of 2002 and for the further reason that the entire property covered by three reference cases is a compact plot having road frontage facility, we are of the view that the value fixed by the reference court at Rs.19,760/- per Are does not reflect the market value of the acquired land. The reference court fixed land value at Rs.29,985/- per Are for the property categorised as Category No.1 and having road frontage. We, therefore, refix the land value at Rs.24,872/- per Are which is one-half of the difference between the property having road frontage and the acquired property as fixed by the reference court. 5. In L.A.R. No.13 of 2002, the reference court fixed land value at Rs.29,640/- per Are for the property having road frontage based on the judgment in L.A.R. No.116 of 2002 of the same court. We find that the appeal filed against L.A.R. No.116 of 2002 by the State as L.A.A. No.418 L.A.A.NOS.455/2005 & Connected Cases 5 of 2006 was dismissed by this Court, confirming the land value as stated above. The acquired land and the property covered by L.A.R. No.116 of 2002 are similar and similarly situated as found by the reference court and, therefore, no interference is necessary in this appeal. In the result, L.A.A. No.1203 of 2007 is partly allowed modifying the land value at Rs.24,872/- per Are. The appellant is entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on solatium. L.A.A. Nos.455 of 2005 and 546 of 2008 are dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ L.A.A.NOS.455/2005 & Connected Cases 6 KURAIN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A. NOS.455/2005, 1203/2007 & 546/2008 JUDGMENT 19th March, 2008