IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 340 of 2009(D) ------------------------- LAR.9/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- MANOJ, S/O.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 39, RESIDING AT KOUSTHUBHAM KANIYAPURAM P.O., PALLIPURAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER STM.LALITHAMBIKA, W/O.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, KOUSTHUBHAM, KANIYAPURAM, PALLIPPURAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, TC 7/1171, PONGUMMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUMANGALA FOR R1 ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 382 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.340, 382, 384, 385, 448 & 449 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The claimants are the appellants. Their lands in Pallippuram Village were acquired by the Government at the instance of the 2nd respondent Power Grid Corporation of India for the purpose of construction of 400 KV Substation and for other ancillary purposes. The lands involved in these appeals were included in two different categories. For the properties in LAR.No.9/2003, corresponding to LAA.No.340/2009, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12,227 per Are. For properties in all other cases he awarded value at the rate of Rs.11,115/- per Are. Before the reference court the claimants placed reliance mainly on Ext.A4 sale deed. Ext.A4 was executed on 27.5.2000, a few months prior to the promulgation of the relevant Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A4 reflected a land value of Rs.30,000/- per cent. The contention of the respondents as regards Ext.A4 was that Ext.A4 was an artificial document brought into existence by the claimants in anticipation of the land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of staking a higher claim before the authorities. In fact, the L.A Officer had initially LAA.340/09 and connected cases 2 recommended higher amounts to be awarded based on Ext.A4 stating however that the price shown in Ext.A4 is a fancy price. District Collector did not accept the recommendation of the L.A Officer. District Collector chose the basis document for determining market value and fixed market value as indicated above. 2. Evidence before the learned Sub Judge apart from Ext.A4 consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, A5, A6, R1 and R2 and oral evidence of AW1 and RW1. The learned Sub Judge did not become inclined to place reliance on Ext.A4. However, it was noticed by the learned Sub Judge that the properties under acquisition were enjoying the frontage of Pallippuram- Andoorkonam public road, that the locality was important as the same is situated within a distance of 2 km from Techno Park and at a distance of 100 metres away from the NH-47. It was also noticed that though in the revenue records the properties are shown as wet lands, most of the properties had been reclaimed and substantial improvements have been raised on the same by the parties concerned. On the basis of those circumstances which are shown by the Sub Judge under the impugned judgment as plus points enjoyed by the properties, the learned Sub Judge came to the conclusion that the value fixed by the L.A Officer is inadequate and would re-fix the value by giving an enhancement of 20% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. LAA.340/09 and connected cases 3 Thus, for the properties relating to LAA.No.344/2009, value was fixed at Rs.14,672/- per Are while for the properties involved in other cases, value was fixed at Rs.13,338/- per Are. 3. In these appeals, the claimants have raised various grounds assailing the judgment of the learned Sub Judge. It is argued that the court below went wrong in not relying on Ext.A4; that the L.A Officer himself having relied on Ext.A4 for making his initial recommendations did not have a case that Ext.A4 was an artificial document brought into existence with oblique motives, what the L.A Officer has stated is that price for Ext.A4 is a fancy price and nothing more; and that based on Ext.A4 the market value be re-fixed at least at Rs.10,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs.24,700/- per Are. 4. We have heard the submissions of Sri.J.S. Ajithkumar, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority. We have also heard the submissions of Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned Senior Government Pleader, who supported Mr.Millu Dandapani in all his submissions. Mr.Ajithkumar drew our attention to Ext.A4 and to the impugned judgment. He submitted that there was no justifiable reason for the learned Sub Judge to have discarded Ext.A4 from the reckoning. Ext.A4 is clearly a pre-notification document. Proposal if any submitted by the requisitioning authority to the LAA.340/09 and connected cases 4 Government is not a published document and people come to know about L.A proceedings only when official notification under Section 4(1) is issued. Ext.A4 is much earlier to the promulgation of such official notification. The L.A. Officer had in fact relied on Ext.A4 in his award to a certain extent for making initial recommendation. He had not entered a finding that Ext.A4 is an artificial document. Drawing our attention to the findings by the learned Sub Judge regarding the nature of the property, its locational advantages, nearness to various institutions including Techno Park and NH-47, Mr.Ajithkumar submitted that the rate presently awarded is ridiculously low. Mr.Ajithkumar drew our attention to the judgment of the very same court in LAR.No.13/2003 wherein relying on the very Ext.A4 another learned Judge has re-fixed the value of land, for which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs.11,115/- per Are, at Rs.25,000/- per Are. He requested that, that rate be adopted and appeal be allowed in full. 5. All the submissions of Mr.Ajithkumar were resisted by Mr.Millu Dandapani, who supported the impugned judgment on the various reasons stated therein. According to him, the finding that Ext.A4 has been brought into existence with oblique motives is a finding correctly entered into by the learned Sub Judge on appreciating evidence. There is no warrant for upsetting that finding. Once Ext.A4 is excluded from consideration what LAA.340/09 and connected cases 5 remains is only oral evidence of the parties. Based on oral evidence, nothing more than enhancement presently granted, i.e. 20%, can be legitimately granted. According to him, all the properties were wet lands and at any rate there is no comparison between these properties and the properties covered by Ext.A4. Counsel requested that the award of the reference court be confirmed by dismissing the appeals. 6. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have also appreciated those items of evidence to which our attention was drawn by the counsel in their submissions. 7. We do not think that the learned Sub Judge was justified in rejecting Ext.A4 completely on the reason that the same is an artificial document brought into existence by the parties for the purpose of staking a higher claim for land value in the prospective land acquisition proceedings. It should be remembered that Ext.A4 was considered by the L.A Officer during the award enquiry and he did not become inclined to recommend for the full value reflected in Ext.A4 (Rs.75,000/- per Are) for the reason that the price shown in Ext.A4 is a fancy price. Just because the parties agreed to pay and receive a fancy price, it cannot be concluded that the document is an artificial one brought into existence with oblique motives. Purchasers become inclined to pay fancy price when they are keen of purchasing a LAA.340/09 and connected cases 6 particular item of property. In the instant case, even as we disagree with the learned Sub Judge in his finding that Ext.A4 is an artificial document, we agree with the L.A Officer and the District Collector in their view that it is a fancy price that is seen paid under Ext.A4. Once Ext.A4 is excluded from the consideration, the available evidence is the oral evidence of parties and Ext.R1 & R2. Ext.R1 is the notes to award and R2 is a sketch. It is on appreciating Exts.R1 & R2 and the oral evidence of RW1 that the learned Sub Judge concluded that the property under acquisition was enjoying several plus factors narrated by him in the judgment. It has been clearly found that these properties were enjoying direct frontage of Pallippuram- Andoorkonam public road. It has also been found that the distance from these properties to the NH-47 was 100 m. It was not disputed that from Techno Park campus the distance to these properties was below 2 km. It is also found that these properties were at the relevant time under the process of reclamation. We feel that based on these plus factors actually found by the learned Sub Judge, he could have awarded more enhancement to the appellants. Re-appreciating the evidence and making an assessment, which in our opinion is better than the one done by the learned Sub Judge, we re-fix value of land for which the reference court awarded value at the rate of Rs.14,672/- per Are at Rs.17,800/- per Are. Similarly for those lands for which the LAA.340/09 and connected cases 7 reference court awarded value at the rate of Rs.13,338/- per Are, we re-fix at Rs.16,200/- per Are. In other words, the values awarded by the L.A Officer at the rate of Rs.11,227/- per Are and Rs.11,115/- per Are will stand re-fixed respectively at Rs.17,800/- per Are and Rs.16,200/- per Are. Appeals are allowed as above. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the Section while drafting decree will have due regard to the condition imposed by us for condoning the delay caused in instituting the appeals. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb LAA.340/09 and connected cases 8 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.340 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. It is submitted by learned senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji that the order dt.19.3.2009 has not yet been complied with by the appellant. No representation for appellant. Appeal is dismissed for default. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb