IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 LA.App..No. 332 of 2005() ------------------------- LAR.289/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANTS: --------------------- 1. A. LALITHA BAI, KRISHNA KRIPA, V.K.K. NAGAR, PERUMTHANNI, TRIVANDRUM. 2. G. DILEEP KUMAR, OF DO. DO. 3. G. PADMA KUMAR, OF DO. DO. 4. L. SREEKALA, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, P.W.D. (S.C.), TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2007 ALONG WITH L.A..ANO.972/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 3.1.2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NOS.972 OF 2004, 241, 253, 277, 327, 332, 366,1330, 1335 OF 2005, 112, 158, 274, 340,495, 516 & 915 OF 2006 , 219 & 932 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. These are all appeals filed by the claimants and the State of Kerala challenging the fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.17,31,306/- per Are. In all these cases, small bits of land lying on either side of M.G. Road at Thampannoor in Trivandrum city were acquired for the widening of the road from over bridge to Pazhavangadi. All these properties are situated in different survey numbers of Vanchiyoor village. Section 4(1) notification was published on 14.5.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of Rs.5,47,289/- per Are. This was revised and modified by the reference court at Rs.17,31,306/- per Are. The claim was for land value at Rs.31,92,925/- per Are. 2. The potentiality and importance of the acquired lands is not in serious dispute and cannot be disputed also. They are situated on the side of M.G. road leading from the over bridge to Pazhavangadi which is in the LAA NO.332/05 & CON.CASES 2 heart of Thiruvananthapuram city. Pazhavangadi area is the main centre of all commercial activities in the city. The famous Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple is only 200 metres away from the acquired lands. This temple is also known for its tourist attraction. Another historical place, the East Fort, is a few meters away from the acquired lands. The Thampanoor railway station, K.S.R.T.C. bus stand, educational institutions, tourist homes, hotels and cinema theatres are also nearby. It has come out in evidence that the basis land is situated about 1 3/4 Kms. away from the acquired lands. According to the claimants, the basis land is situated in a different locality and there cannot be any comparison between the basis land and the acquired lands and that they are entitled to get 50,00,000/- per cent besides statutory benefits. 3. L.A.A. No.332 of 2005 which arises from the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.289 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram was taken as the main case at the time of hearing. In that case, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the claimants. Exts.R1 to R5 were marked on the side of the respondent - State. The report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner is marked as Ext.C1. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence. Ext.R1 is the basic document produced by the respondent. It is seen that LAA NO.332/05 & CON.CASES 3 the respondent did not care to examine either the vendor or the vendee of Ext.R1 sale deed. so as to prove the real nature of the transaction. The court below also found that since the basic document was not properly proved, it cannot be said that the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was fair or not. We have also noticed that the basis land is located at a distance of 1 3/4 Kms. away from the acquired lands and that the acquired lands are situated in a prime location in Thiruvananthapuram city. Pazhavangadi area wherein the acquired lands are located is the most important commercial part of the city. The basis land situated in Palayam area is in an all together different locatlity. Though that area is also commercially important, there cannot be any comparison between these two lands. The proper method to fix land value is to adopt the land value of the lands situated in similar position in the same locality. The respondent ought to have selected a property in Pazhavangadi area to fix land value of the acquired lands. There is no justification in adopting the land value of a sale deed which is in respect of land situated in a different locality in the same city. The distance of 1 3/4 Kms. may not be normally very material; but so far as Thiruvananthapuram city is concerned, both the properties are not similarly situated and hence the basis land in another locality cannot form the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. LAA NO.332/05 & CON.CASES 4 4. The appellants - claimants, relying on Ext.A1 document, contended before us that the property covered by Ext.A1 and the acquired lands are similar and similarly situated and, therefore, they are entitled to the same land value. The land value as per Ext.A1 is Rs.31,92,924/- per Are (Rs.12,02,682/- per cent). The document was proved by AW.2. The property covered by Ext.A1 was also acquired and it is noticed that L.A.R. No.26 of 1999 is pending before the same reference court. There is no dispute regarding the fact that both properties lie near by and are facing M.G. road. This fact was reported by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 report. During cross-examination of AW.2, a suggestion was put to him as to whether the purchase was made in order to get more frontage to the property already in the possession of Metro Cycle Exporters Company and so a fancy price was shown. It was also suggested whether AW.2 was giving false evidence in order to get more compensation in respect of the property in L.A.R. No.26 of 1999. In the notes to the award, the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Officer was that the property owners were well aware of the acquisition proceedings in advance and so a high price was shown in Ext.A1 document which cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value. For the aforesaid reason, the court below did not venture to rely on Ext.A1 document for the purpose of fixing the LAA NO.332/05 & CON.CASES 5 market value of the acquired lands. 5. Ext.A3 is another sale deed in respect of 2.140 cents of land. The land value in Ext.A3 is Rs.17,36,306/- per Are (Rs.7,00,934/- per cent). The property covered by Ext.A3 also lies in a different locality near to the basis land. The reference court relied on Ext.A3 and fixed the market value of the acquired lands and awarded Rs.17,36,306/- per Are. It is true that the property covered by Ext.A3 is also lying in an important locality in the city. This property and the basis land are situated in the same locality which is a different locality so far as the acquired lands are concerned. As we have stated supra, the acquired lands are located in the heart of Thiruvananthapuram city and cannot be compared with the land in any other locality other than Chalai Bazar. Since no other properties are available for comparison, we have to place reliance on Ext.A3, the locational importance and the potential value of the acquired lands. It is not necessary to reiterate the importance of the locality wherein the acquired lands are situated. It is also not disputed that the property in Pazhavangadi area will fetch the highest value in Thiruvananthapuram city. 6. Considering the potentiality and the locational importance, we LAA NO.332/05 & CON.CASES 6 are of the view that a reasonable enhancement on the value in Ext.A3, in view of the locational advantage would make a just and proper fixation. We accordingly refix the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.9,00,000/- per cent. In the result, the appeals filed by the claimants are partly allowed. The judgment and decree are modified. The market value of the acquired property is refixed at Rs.9,00,000/- per cent. The appeals field by the State are dismissed. The claimants are entitled to all eligible statutory benefits including interest on solatium. There will be no order as to costs. All the stay petitions are dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ LAA NO.332/05 & CON.CASES 7 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A.NOS.972 OF 2004, 241, 253, 277, 327, 332, 366 1330, 1335 OF 2005, 112, 158, 274, 340,495, 516 &915 OF 2006 , 219 & 932 OF2007 JUDGMENT 3RD JANUARY, 2008