IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM : PRESENT . . THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PIUS C KURIAKOSE & . . . THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C K ABDUL REHIM , 7 2010 / 17 1932 MONDAY THE TH JUNE TH JYAISTHA . .. . 215 2008() LA App No of ------------------------- .115/2006 . , LAR of III ADDL SUB COURT ERNAKULAM .................... ( ): APPELLANT S CLAIMANT ---------------------- . , , SMT LAKSHMI CHULLIKKAVU MADAM , . THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE . . BY ADV SMT ROSE MICHAEL ( ): RESPONDENT S --------------- 1. . ( ) STATE OF KERALA REP BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA , , – 16. RAILWAYS EKM KOCHI 2. SOUTHERN RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY ITS , . DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER ERNAKULAM . . . . , . ., 2 ADV SRI M C CHERIAN SR SC RAILWAYS FOR R . . GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT LATHA T THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 07/06/2010, ON THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE : FOLLOWING PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 215 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Manakunnam Village was acquired for the purpose of Raiway pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 18-12- 2003. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.23,704/- per Are corresponding to Rs.9592.87 per cent. Before the reference court Ext.A1 copy of judgment in L.A.R. No. 58 of 2006 was the one item of evidence on which the claimant relied mostly. Ext.A1 was in respect of acquisition for the same purpose, of property which had been awarded the same value by the LA Officer and included in the same category as in the present case. Under Ext. A1 the reference court had re-fixed the value at Rs.99040/- per Are. The court below found in comparison to the property covered by Ext.A1 the property under acquisition in the LAA. No.215/08 -2- present case did not have so much of locational advantages. In terms of distance from the platform of Kureekkad Railway Station the acquired property was found to be more distant. So on the basis that the property covered by Ext.A1 is more valuable than the property under acquisition in the present case what the learned Sub Judge did was to make a deduction of 25% from the value reflected in Ext.A1 and re- fixed the value at Rs.74,280/- per Are. In this appeal preferred by the claimant, she has raised various grounds and Smt.Rose Michael, learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. She would however, lastly confined her plea to re-fixation of the market value at Rs.99040/- per Are on the basis of A1. According to her, there was no justification for making a cut of 25% on the value shown in Ext.A1. She referred to Section 28A and submitted that the principles underlying that section is to ensure that the persons who have been treated equally for the purpose of land value by the L.A. LAA. No.215/08 -3- Officer should be treated equally by the L.A. Court also. She referred to the judgment of this Court in LAA. No. 754 of 2008 series and submitted that in those appeals which were directed against Ext.A1 this Court has re-fixed the value at rates higher than even Rs.99040/- per Are. But according to her, the appellant will be satisfied if this Court re-fixed the value at Rs.99040/-since the claim of the appellant is limited to that amount. 2. All the submissions of Smt.Rose Michael were very stiffly resisted by Sri. M.C.Cherian, learned standing counsel for the Railway. Mr. Cherian submitted that the Land Acquisition Court is not bound by the rates fixed by the land acquisition officer or by the methodology adopted by the land acquisition officer for determining land value. The award of the land acquisition officer is just an offer which if not accepted by the party, the land acquisition officer has to make a reference under Section 18. Before the Land Acquisition Court the claimant is in the position of a plaintiff LAA. No.215/08 -4- in a regular suit and the Government and the requisitioning authority are in the position of defendants. The Land Acquisition Court has to decide the question of market value of the property under acquisition afresh on the basis of the evidence that come on record. The evidence which came on record was that the property in the present case did not enjoy so much advantages as the property in Ext.A1. That being the position there is no warrant for interfering with the impugned judgment. As regards the judgment in LAA. No. 754 of 2008 Mr. Cherian referred to that judgment and submitted that the decision in that judgment is taken on certain other considerations which are not relevant at all in the present case. 3. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. As directed by us we were supplied with a copy of the statement of objections filed by the requisitioning authority before the court below. We find that the requisitioning authority never contended before the LAA. No.215/08 -5- Court below that the method of categorisation adopted by the land acquisition officer and the action of the land acquisition officer in including the appellant's property and the property covered by Ext. Ext.A1 in the same category was irrational or illegal. On the contrary the contention was only that the value awarded by the L.A.O. is reasonable and is not liable to be enhanced. According to us, the legislative objective which underlies provisions like Section 28A is to ensure that the persons whose properties are treated to be identical for the purpose of determining land value by the land acquisition officer are treated similarly by the court below to the extent possible. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment did not rule out the probative value of Ext.A1 altogether. What the learned Judge did was to compare A1 property with the property under acquisition and find that A1 property was slightly superior to the property under acquisition. On facts perhaps the learned Subordinate Judge was right in concluding that LAA. No.215/08 -6- A1 property was slightly superior. But then in our opinion when large scale acquisition is resorted to, the land acquisition officer becomes obliged to resort to belting or categorisation method for sake of convenience. The adoption of belting and categorisation method in cases of acquisition of land in large scale has been judicially approved also. The inevitable result of adoption of such method is that certain persons may get unmerited gains while certain others may suffer loss. The principles underlying Section 28A should not be discarded. We are of the view that it is not open to the Government and to the requisitioning authority in the present case to contend that the appellant whose property was included in the same category as Ext.A1 is not entitled for the value awarded to the property covered by Ext.A1. Hence relying on Ext.A1 we re-fix the value of the lands under under acquisition in the present appeal at Rs.99040/- per Are. Since the appellant has limited her claim to that amount it is made LAA. No.215/08 -7- clear that under no circumstance the appellant is entitled for relying on the judgment in LAA. 754/08 which we notice was decided on the facts which are peculiar to that case. The result is that the appeal is allowed. Market value of the land under acquisition is re-fixed at Rs.99040/- per Are. The appellant is entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/- LAA. No.215/08 -8-