IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 508 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- [LAR.NO.20/2006 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM DTD. 20/11/2009] .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- R.SREENIVASAN, S/O. RAMASWAMY REDDIYAR, TRIKARTHIKA, T.B.ROAD, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADVS. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SRI.SANTHOSH MODAYIL. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION DIVISION, K.S.E.B., POOVANTHURUTHU, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN, R2 BY SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, S.C, K.S.E.B. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, ALONG WITH L.A.A NO. 509 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.508, 509, 510 & 1173 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. L.A.A.Nos.508, 509 and 510 of 2010 are preferred by the claimants and L.A.A.No.1173 of 2010 is preferred by the Requisitioning Authority, Kerala State Electricity Board. All these appeals are directed against a common award passed by the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Kottayam, in L.A.A.Nos.20/2006, 22/2006 and 34/2006. At the instance of Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), lands in Thrickodithanam Village belonging to the claimants herein were acquired for the purpose of construction of a 110 KV Electricity Sub Station for the KSEB. The Land Acquisition Officer has categorised these properties in to two categories. For the first category, he awarded land value @ Rs.16,823/- per are and for the second category, he awarded land value @ Rs.15,833/- per are. The reference court 2 L.A.A.Nos.508, 509, 510 & 1173 of 2010 under the impugned award also agreed with the categorisation and found that the properties included by the LAO in categories 1 and 2 had the same value, advantages and potentialities and proceeded to fix a uniform market value for the entire property under acquisition. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, R1 and R2 and C1 and C1(a) apart from the oral evidence Aws.1 to 4. Significantly, to the oral evidence adduced on the side of the claimants not even formal counter oral evidence was adduced either by the Government or by the Requisitioning Authority. It was mainly on A2 and A3 sale deeds in respect of properties situated at a distance of 50 mtrs and 1 km. away from the properties under acquisition that the claimants relied on in support of their contention claiming enhanced land value. These two documents reflected an average land value of around Rs. 37,000/- per cent. As regards A3, it was revealed that the property covered by that document was lying at 7 feets below the road level. It was also revealed 3 L.A.A.Nos.508, 509, 510 & 1173 of 2010 that in the property there exists a substantial building, the learned Sub Judge was inclined to award the land value reflected in those documents for two reasons. The first reason was that the land was not comparable as it was lying at a depth of 7 feets below from the road level unlike the acquired property. The other reason was that unlike the acquired property the above land was a house plot. More or less the same reasoning was adopted by the learned Sub Judge for not awarding the value reflected in Ext.A2. According to the learned Sub Judge a cut of 50% was liable to be made for the level difference between the two properties and a further cut off of 20% was to be made for the reason that unlike the properties under acquisition the properties covered by the documents were smaller plots. We are unable to endorse the reasons which weighed with the learned Sub Judge for making deductions on the value reflected in these two documents. It is true that the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down, vide decisions in LAO & Sub-Collector, Gadwal Vs. Sreelatha Bhoopal 4 L.A.A.Nos.508, 509, 510 & 1173 of 2010 (AIR 1997 SC 2552), Gafar & Ors. Vs. Moradabad Development Authority & anr. (2007(7) SCC 614) and in State of J & K Vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani (AIR 1998 SC 2470) that, when the acquisition is of a large extent making deductions for development charges at fixed rates may be justified. We notice that in all these cases the extent of the properties acquired was below 50 cents. Hence making 20% deduction on account of what is described as largeness of the extent was not justified. Similarly learned Sub Judge should have noticed that it was the property covered by the document which was lying at a level lower to the road than to the other properties under acquisition. Making deductions on account of the level difference between the road level and the levels of the properties covered by the documents was not at all justified. But according to us, there are other very good reasons on the basis of which the learned Sub Judge was justified in not awarding to the appellants the values reflected in A2 and A3. We notice that Ext.A3 property was enjoying the 5 L.A.A.Nos.508, 509, 510 & 1173 of 2010 frontage of two roads. We also notice that Ext.A3 property was situated nearer to the 'നലവല' (junction) of the locality than the property under acquisition. Yet another plus factor which we find as regards the properties covered by Exts.A2 and A3 is that the properties were qualitatively superior than the other one. Those properties are fully developed and in one of them there exists a pucca residential building. 2. We have heard Sri.James Kurian, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant and also heard Sri.Pulikool Aboobacker, standing counsel appearing for KSEB the acquisitioning authority in detail. 3. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence on record. As already stated to the oral evidence on the side of the claimants regarding the advantages and potentialities of the land under acquisition, not even formal counter evidence was adduced by the government or the requisitioning authority. The Commission reports Exts.C1 and C1(a) offered acceptable evidence regarding the level 6 L.A.A.Nos.508, 509, 510 & 1173 of 2010 of the acquired properties and the advantages enjoyed by them. It appears to us that the learned Sub Judge has not taken into account all the inputs which are relevant while determining the market value in land acquisition cases. Having made reappraisal of the evidence ourselves, we feel that on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence on record, particularly Exts.A2 and A3, the market value of the lands under acquisition can be re-fixed at Rs.21,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs.51,891/- which we round off to Rs.51,900/- per are. In this connection, we approve the action of the learned Sub Judge in having an awarded uniform rate for the properties which were included in two categories by the LAO. The result of the above discussion is therefore as follows :- The appeals preferred by the claimants will stand allowed. The land value is fixed at Rs.51,900/- per are. The appeal preferred by the requisitioning authority is dismissed. The claimants are entitled for all statutory benefit admissible under Section 7 L.A.A.Nos.508, 509, 510 & 1173 of 2010 23(1), 23(1)(A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the re-fixed compensation. However, while provisions are made in the decree for interest under Section 28, section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court while condoning the delay which was caused in the matter of filing the appeal. The appeals preferred by the claimants are allowed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Before issuing decree copies, it should be ensured that full court fee payable on the appeal memoranda is remitted. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/