IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 5 of 2010 (A) ----------------------------- LAR.62/2008 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- REMANI E. PAUL, W/O. MAJ PAUL SAMUEL (RETD.) AGED 70 YEARS, MUNDAPALLIL HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGAM, NOW RESIDING AT ASHIRWAD SHALOM 5 WOOD COTE ROAD, COONOOOR-643 102, NILGIRIS. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., N.F. GATE, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFO PARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD. ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, INFOPARKS FOR R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN SRI.P.A.AHAMMED FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.5 and 1193 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in Kakkanad village were acquired for the purpose of Info Park. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 18/11/03. The properties were included in category-1 Dry Land having tar road frontage. For these properties, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at ` 73,200/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimants placed reliance on Exts.A1 to A9 documents apart from their oral evidence as AWs.1 and 2. In LAR.62/08 corresponding to LAA.5/10 the claimant relied on Exts.A1 to A9 documents apart from their oral evidence as AWs.1 and 2. The other evidence in the case consisted of Exts.R1 to R8, the oral L. A. A. Nos.5 and 1193 of 2010 -2- evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and Ext.C1 Commission Report. The learned Sub Judge did not place specific reliance on any one of the documents produced by the claimants. Ultimately by applying rule of thumb based on the evidence available on record, the learned Subordinate Judge would re-fix the market value of land at ` 1,28,100/- per Are. In LAR.130/08 corresponding to LAA.1193/2010 what the learned Subordinate Judge did was to rely on the judgment which is impugned in LAA.5/10 and award to the claimant therein the same land value. 2. In these appeals various grounds are raised challenging what is described as inadequacy in the compensation re-determined by the Reference Court. In LAA.5/10, the appellant has limited his claim to ` 1,72,900/- per Are. In LAA.1193/2010, there is claim for enhancement in structure value. In that case, for the structures the Land Acquisition Officer awarded ` 4 lakhs. Approved Valuer L. A. A. Nos.5 and 1193 of 2010 -3- recommended that the correct value of the building is ` 25,43,000/-. The court below, however, would award ` 17,80,100/-. According to the appellant, the court below should have awarded the full value recommended by the approved valuer. Sri.George Cherian and Sri.R.Padmaraj, the learned counsel for the appellants addressed us in detail on the basis of the grounds raised in the appeal memoranda respectively filed. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel to the various documents produced on the side of the claimants, particularly to Exts.A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7 in LAR.62/08 in L.A.A.5/2010. According to the learned counsel though these documents were executed on dates subsequent to the relevant Section 4(1) notification, the recitals in the documents will show that market value was fixed by the DLPC as on the date of Section 4(1) notification itself. These are all documents executed by the claimants whose properties were notified under the very same Section L. A. A. Nos.5 and 1193 of 2010 -4- 4(1) notification and had opted for the DLPC package offered by the Government. Learned counsel submitted that going by Ext.A2, the market value of the property is ` 80,584/- per cent corresponding to ` 1,99,123/- per Are. Another point which was highlighted by Sri.George Cherian was that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded only 15% value more than the value awarded by him for properties in category-4 to the acquired properties. The acquired properties unlike the properties in category No.4 were enjoying tar road frontage. According to the learned counsel, the properties in category-1 should have been awarded at least 50% more than the value of the properties in category-4. 3. Sri.R.Padmaraj also, endorsing the submissions of Sri.George Cherian regarding the land value, submitted that the Reference Court went wrong in not awarding the full value recommended by the approved valuer for the building which existed. Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior L. A. A. Nos.5 and 1193 of 2010 -5- Government Pleader would oppose the submissions of Sri.George Cherian and Sri.Padmaraj. According to Smt.Latha T. Thankappan what is awarded by the Reference Court is reasonable and adequate. Exts.A2 to A7 are all post notification documents and since pre-notification including basis documents were available, resorting to Exts.A2 to A7 will not be justified. She also submitted that it is not open to the claimants to question the rationale of the categorisation and the ratio maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values of the various categories of properties actually acquired. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. True, Exts.A2 to A7 documents are post notification documents in the sense that they have been executed after the promulgation of Section 4 (1) notification in this case. But as rightly submitted by Sri.Cherian, a perusal of the recitals in the document will L. A. A. Nos.5 and 1193 of 2010 -6- show that these documents are executed by the claimants whose properties have been acquired under the same notification who decided to accept the DLPC package offered by the Government. According to us, the market value of these properties covered by these documents were fixed by DLPC as on the date of Section 4(1) notification and 30% additions were made by the committee in view of the obvious position that if the parties had opted for land acquisition, the Government would have become compelled to award at least 30% more by way of solatium. Of Exts.A2 to A7, we find that Ext.A5 is the one document which has more probative value, as it is more proximate to the relevant Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A5 is in respect of property which would have been included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category-4 i.e. properties without any road frontage. Under Ext.A5, the market value reflected is ` 73,260/- per cent. We notice that under Ext.A2, the market L. A. A. Nos.5 and 1193 of 2010 -7- value reflected is ` 73,260/- per cent corresponding to ` 1,81,025/- per Are. We do find merit in the submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader that 30% will have to be deducted in the value of Ext.A5 in view of the fact that the DLPC had added 30% in lieu of solatium payable to the persons whose properties are acquired under the provisions of the L.A. Act. But then, we find considerable merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the ratio maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values of properties in category 1 and 4 is incorrect. According to us, the value of properties in category-1 should be at least 30% more than the value of properties in category-4. This means that even as we deduct 30% from the value reflected in Ext.A5, we have to add 30% more to arrive at the correct market value of the properties in category-1. On that basis we re-fix the market value of the land acquired in both these appeals at ` 1,81,025/- per Are L. A. A. Nos.5 and 1193 of 2010 -8- which we round off to ` 1,81,100/- per Are. But we find that the appellant in L.A.A.5/10 has limited his claim to ` 1,72,900/- per Are and the appellant in L.A.A.1193/10 has limited his claim to ` 1,50,000/- per Are. We, therefore, allow L.A.A.5/10 re-fixing the total market value of the land under acquisition at ` 1,72,900/- per Are. Similarly, we allow L.A.A.1193/10 by re-fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at ` 1,50,000/- per Are. Despite the persuasive submissions of Sri.Padmaraj, we do not find warrant for interference with the award of the court in LAR.130/08 in respect of building value. The learned Subordinate Judge was justified in not awarding the full value recommended by the approved valuer. 5. Both these appeals will stand allowed only to the extent indicated above. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties will L. A. A. Nos.5 and 1193 of 2010 -9- suffer their respective costs. 6. In L.A.A.5/10, we re-fix the value of the land which was treated by the Land Acquisition Officer as pathway at ` 69,160/- per Are. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-