IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 1034 of 2009(C) -------------------------------- LAR.48/2003 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------------- 1. KOYAPPAKUNNATH MADHAVI, W/O.KOYAPPAKUNNATH RAGHAVAN. 2. KOYAPPAKUNNATH KAMALAKSHI, D/O.KOYAPPAKUNNATH RAGHAVAN. 3. KOYAPPAKUNNATH RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KOYAPPAKUNNATH RAGHAVAN. 4. KOYAPPAKUNNATH USHAKUMARI, D/O.KOYAPPAKUNNATH RAGHAVAN. 5. KOYAPPAKUNNATH SUCHINITHA, D/O.KOYAPPAKUNNATH RAGHAVAN, P.O.MELANGADI,KONDOTTY. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR,CALICUT AIRPORT. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAM KUMAR SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, CALICUT AIRPOR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, A/W LAA.182/10 & CON. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.1034/09, 144/10, 145/10, 172/10, 174/10, 182/10, 191/10, 194/10, 165/10, 166/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10, 170/10 & 2354/08 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose The claimants are the appellants. Their lands in Kondotty village were acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 21/08/01 for the purpose of construction of additional car park in the Calicut Airport Campus. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the properties under acquisition in two groups. Included in Group No.1 were the properties with road frontage. For these properties he awarded land value at the rate of ` 11,700/- per cent. Included in Group No.2 were properties without road frontage. For these properties he awarded land value at the rate of ` 10,530/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, all these cases were tried jointly by the learned L. A. A. No.1034/09 & con. Cases -2- Subordinate Judge. At trial, it was mainly on Exts.A1 to A4 sale documents that the appellants relied on. 2. In these appeals, the appellants are seen relying on Exts.A2 to A4. Ext.A2 was a pre-notification Sale Deed dt.04/02/00 in respect of a property in Kondotty village reflecting a land value of ` 1,54,865/- per cent. Exts.A3 and A4 were post notification documents reflecting a higher land value. The Reference Court did not place reliance on any of the documents relied on by the appellants/claimants. Ultimately what the Reference Court did was to rely on the basis document itself and to grant 5% increase on the full value reflected in the basis document for passage of time between the date of that document and the date of promulgation of Section 4(1) notification. Thus, the learned Subordinate Judge re-fixed the value of properties included in Group No.1 at the rate of ` 16,380/- per cent and that of properties included in Group No.2 at the rate of ` 14,742/- per cent. L. A. A. No.1034/09 & con. Cases -3- 3. In these appeals, the claimants have raised various grounds assailing what they describe as the gross inadequacy in the compensation re-fixed by the Reference Court. It is urged that the court below should have relied on Ext.A2 document and re-fixed the land value on the basis of the value reflected therein. However, in these appeals, the appellants have limited their claims at the rates ranging between ` 25,000/- and ` 18,000/- per cent. On an average the claim is limited to ` 19,500/- per cent. 4. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Babu S. Nair, Sri.Salil Narayanan and Sri.S.A.Saju, the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants addressed submissions based on the grounds. According to them, the appreciation of evidence by the learned Subordinate Judge was quite improper. The learned Subordinate Judge ought to have placed reliance on Ext.A2. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to the common judgment of this Court in L. A. A. No.1034/09 & con. Cases -4- L.A.A.911/03 series pertaining to acquisition of lands in various villages of Malappuram district including Kondotty village for the purpose of expansion of the Run Way of the Calicut Airport pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 15/11/93. It was submitted that for properties in Tak No.1 involved in those appeals which according to the learned counsel are comparable to the properties in Group No.1 involved in these appeals this Court fixed land value at ` 20,250/- per cent. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention also to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.2415/08. It was submitted on the basis of that judgment that for properties in Pallikkal village of the same district acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 10/02/99 for the construction of residential quarters for Calicut Air Customs, this Court has re-fixed the land value at ` 25,350/- per cent. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, considering the probative value of the judgments of this Court, all these appeals can be L. A. A. No.1034/09 & con. Cases -5- allowed in full. We enquired of the learned counsel for the appellants whether they are requesting for a remand of these cases to the Reference Court. The learned counsel answered in the negative. 5. All the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants were opposed by Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel for the Requisitioning Authority. Sri.Sugunapalan, the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority was supported in all his submissions by Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Sri.Sugunapalan submitted that Ext.A2 was discarded by the court below on valid reasons. Ext.A2 property was situated in Kondotty Bazaar and was enjoying the frontage of two main roads unlike the properties under acquisition in Group No.1 which were enjoying only the frontage of Panchyat mud road. The senior counsel also submitted that the properties under acquisition were properties situated in close proximity to the Calicut Airport L. A. A. No.1034/09 & con. Cases -6- and on account of the restrictions in the matter of the constructions there were no takers for these properties under acquisition. This was a minus factor for the properties under acquisition and this minus factor was not taken into account by the Reference Court at all. The learned senior counsel submitted that there is no comparison between these properties and the properties which were subject matter of the judgments of this Court. The properties in Tak No.1 in LAA.911/03 were properties enjoying the frontage of Kondotty Tirur Angady main road unlike the properties under acquisition in Group No.1 in this case were enjoying the frontage of only the Panchayat Mud Road. These judgments were never placed on record. Since they were not placed on record, if this Court relies on these judgments now, prejudice will be occasioned to the Requisitioning Authority. According to the learned senior counsel what is awarded by the Reference Court is quite reasonable and there is no scope for any further enhancement. Learned senior counsel further L. A. A. No.1034/09 & con. Cases -7- pointed out that majority of the claimants have not preferred any appeal which indicates that what is awarded by the Reference Court is the maximum value which could be obtained for their properties in the market. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that most of the claimants were poor people and it was for shortage of funds that they did not prefer appeal to the High Court. The appellants limited their claims only because of that reason. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick re- appraisal of the evidence available on record. According to us, Exts.A2, A3 and A4 could not have been relied on by the Reference Court as they were post notification documents. Ext.A2 in our opinion was rightly discarded by the learned Subordinate Judge as there is no comparison between Ext.A2 property and the properties under acquisition in this case. Ext.A2 property was situated in Kondotty Bazaar itself which L. A. A. No.1034/09 & con. Cases -8- was enjoying the frontage of two roads. Ext.A2 property was superior in all respects. The distance between Ext.A2 property and the properties under acquisition was 1 kilometre. The only question which survives for consideration is whether there is justification for granting any further enhancement over what is awarded by the Reference Court. In this context we take into account the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.911/03 series to which the Requisitioning Authority was party. It is not disputed before us that the above common judgment has attained finality. However, according to us, that common judgment has some relevance while determining the market value of the lands under acquisition in these cases. At the same time, we find considerable force in the submission of Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan that the properties included in Tak No.1 in that judgment was far superior to the properties included in Group No.1 in these cases. Those properties were admittedly and evidently enjoying the frontage of Kondotty - Tirur Angady main road L. A. A. No.1034/09 & con. Cases -9- unlike the properties in Group No.1 in these cases which were enjoying the frontage of only the Panchayat mud road. We also notice merit in the submission of Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan that the properties under acquisition on account of the building restrictions were not that much marketable as the properties included in Tak No.1 in the above common judgment. At the same time, we notice that the properties under acquisition were situated in the same village and close to the properties covered by the common judgment. Relying on that common judgment to a certain extent and making a re-appraisal of the evidence on record including the basis document and the oral evidence adduced by the parties we are inclined to re-fix the market value of the lands. At the same time, we notice another aspect. According to us, the ratio fixed by the Reference Court as well as the Land Acquisition Officer between the values of properties in Group Nos.1 and 2 which is 100:90 is not the correct ratio. The correct ratio in our opinion will be 100:85. L. A. A. No.1034/09 & con. Cases -10- Applying that correct ratio we re-fix the value of properties in Group No.1 at ` 18,500/- per cent. Similarly we re-fix the value of properties in Group No.2 at ` 15,725/-. We notice that in LAA.145/10 the extent involved is a large one being more than 1 Acre. Considering the largeness of the extent of the properties involved in this case we order that a 5% cut be made on the value re-fixed in that case. As per the above direction all the appeals are allowed as above. The appellants will be entitled for proportionate costs also. They will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections on the re-fixed compensation. However, while decree is drafted and provision is made for interest under Section 28 the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court in the orders condoning the delay. The decree copies will be issued to the appellants only after ensuring that the full court fee has been paid and the conditions imposed by this court in the delay petitions have been complied with. There will be a direction that the L. A. A. No.1034/09 & con. Cases -11- balance court fee payable on the appeal memoranda shall be remitted within a period of one month from today. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE