IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 107 of 2007(B) -------------------------- LAR.20/2004 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT. ----------------------- SAINA BEEVI, D/O.SAFEDA BEEVI, KANIMEL CHIRAYAL JAMAD MANZIL, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY SRI.G.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 209 OF 2007 ETC. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ LAA. Nos. 107, 209, 876, 305, 510, 1073, 1341, 1363, 1364, 1386 & 1387 of 2007, 1741, 1742, 1750 & 1751 of 2008, & 539, 620 & 644 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. All these appeals are preferred by claimants who are dissatisfied by the re-determination of compensation for their lands under acquisition by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pathanamthitta. The properties were in Enadimangalam Village of Adoor Taluk. The purpose of the acquisition was establishment of a Food Processing Park for KINFRA, the 2nd respondent. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 19-12-2003. The Land Acquisition Officer categorized the lands under acquisition into four. Included in category No.1 where important lands having direct frontage of Panchayat Road, for these properties the L.A.Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4600/- per Are. Included in category 2 where properties LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -2- enjoying direct frontage of estate road, for these properties the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,400/- per Are. Included in category No. 3 where properties having access through G-plots only, for these properties the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4200/- per Are. Included in the 4th category where lands without any road frontage and for these properties the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4000/- per Are. The learned Subordinate Judge under the various judgments which are impugned in these appeals re-fixed the value of lands included in category- 1 at Rs.10,000/- per Are evaluating the evidence which was adduced by the parties. Similarly the value of lands included in category Nos. 2,3 and 4 were respectively re-fixed at Rs.8000/- per Are, Rs.7000/- per Are and Rs.6000/- per Are. According to the appellants the enhancement granted is grossly inadequate. Many of the appellants have raised a grievance that the LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -3- courts below did not award any enhancement towards the value of the improvements which existed upon the properties under acquisition. The improvements were mostly rubber trees. The appellants point out that in LAA. Nos. 1073/07, 644/09 and 620/09 corresponding to LAR. Nos. 13/04, 64/05 & 66/05, considerable enhancement was granted by the reference court towards value of improvements. According to the appellants, the court below having granted enhancement in those cases towards value of improvements was not at all justified in disallowing any enhancement towards value of improvements in the other cases. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.T.K.Koshy, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority and the learned senior Govt. Pleader Mr. P.K.Babu. 3. Mr.Koshy would argue that the court below has LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -4- excluded relevant evidence adduced by the claimants from consideration while fixing market value of the lands under acquisition. According to him, under Ext.A6 common judgment the very same court had re-fixed land value at Rs.16,426/- per Are. According to him, the lands involved in Ext.A6 and the lands under acquisition in these cases were similarly situated and had several potentialities and improvements. He would further argue that grave injustice has been caused to the appellants in that they were not awarded any enhancement towards value of improvements. Attention was drawn by him to those judgments where the court below had awarded considerable increase towards value of improvements. Sri.G.S.Reghunath per contra would oppose all the submissions of Mr.Koshy. According to him Ext.A6 judgment could not have been a basis since that was in respect of acquisition pursuant to a different notification. He would also submit that the properties LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -5- covered by Ext.A6 were superior in the sense that even in 1996 a much higher value than what is awarded by the L.A. Officer in 2003 to the properties under acquisition in these cases had been awarded. According to Mr.Reghunath, there is no warrant for granting any further enhancement to the claimants. Meeting the argument that the court below had adopted different standards in the matter of awarding enhancement towards value of improvements Mr.Reghunath submitted that the additional value of improvements has been awarded only in cases where there was evidence in the form of acceptable commission reports. The claimants in those cases where there is no acceptable commission report cannot aspire for award of more value towards value of improvements. 4. Mr.Reghunath also referred to LAA. Nos. 510/07, 1073/07, 1742/08 and 1341/07. He pointed out that those were all cases involving more than 1 hectare of land. Citing LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -6- the judgments of the Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Maha Singh and another (AIR 1997 SC 2553), Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyothi Rao and others (AIR 2007 SC 614) and Gajjan Singh and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC 2417) Mr. Reghunath submitted that the acquisition in the above appeals will have to be treated as whole sale acquisition and therefore the market value which is being awarded in other case involving small extent – retail acquisition cannot be awarded. According to him in whole sale acquisition at least 20% of the total price determined by this court towards market value of land should be deducted. The learned senior Govt. Pleader would support all the submissions of Mr.Reghunath. According to him, there is no warrant at all for interference in the impugned judgment. 5. We have very anxiously considered the rival LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -7- submissions addressed at the Bar. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr.Koshy that Ext.A6 judgment ought to have been followed and the enhancement of the market value granted under Ext.A6 should have been fixed for the properties under acquisition included in category- 1. A6 was not an acquisition pursuant to the very same notification or for the same purposes. It has come out in evidence that A6 property unlike the properties under acquisition were situated within Adoor Municipality and that A6 properties were enjoying the direct frontage of Kodumon – Parakode PWD Road. It is apparent that A6 properties were far superior to the properties under acquisition since even in 1988 when A6 properties were acquired for the purpose of Water Authority the acquisition officer had awarded much higher value to those properties than the value awarded to properties in category-1 in these cases. According to us, the learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in not LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -8- placing reliance on Ext.A1. 6. If Ext.A6 is eschewed, then the tangible evidence available before the learned Subordinate Judge for fixing market value of the properties under acquisition was the basis document, oral evidence of the claimants and the reports of the Commissioner available in some of the cases which were to the effect that the properties were situated in a relatively important locality. To the oral evidence adduced by the claimants, counter evidence was not adduced in most of the cases. It is evaluating the oral evidence and the evidence other than Ext.A6 that the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value of the lands in all these cases. 7. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence and we feel that on a better assessment based on the evidence available in these cases other than Ext.A6 the market value of the lands under acquisition can be re-fixed in the following manner: LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -9- Category – 1 : Rs.11,000/- per Are Category – 2 : Rs.8,800/- per Are Category – 3 : Rs.7,500/- per Are Category – 4 : Rs.6,400/- per Are Accordingly, in modification of the awards passed by the reference court we re-fix the market value of the lands which were included in category No. 1 by the L.A. Officer (lands for which the L.A. Officer awarded Rs.10,000/- per Are) at Rs.11,000/- per Are. Similarly, for properties of category No.2 (for which L.A. Officer awarded Rs.8000/- per Are) we award Rs.8,800/- per Are. For category Nos.3 and 4 (for which L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rates Rs.7000/- and Rs.6000/- respectively per Are) we re-fix at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per Are and Rs.6,400/- per Are. 8. We notice elements of genuineness in the grievance voiced by those claimants who were not awarded any enhancement by the reference court towards value of LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -10- improvements. May be, it is true that in cases other than the cases covered by LAA. Nos. 1073/07, 644/09 and 620/09 (LAR numbers respectively 13/04, 64/05 and 66/05) there was no good evidence to grant enhancement towards value of improvements. At the same time, it is not seriously in dispute that the nature of improvements in these properties were somewhat similar to the nature of improvements in the other cases. Rubber trees standing in these properties were somewhat similar and we feel that based on the evidence adduced by the claimants uniform enhancement by 30% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer towards value of improvements in his award can be awarded in all the appeals except LAA. Nos. 1073/07, 644/09 and 620/09. Accordingly, all the appellants other than appellants in LAA. Nos. 1073/07 644/09 and 620/09, we award 30% of the amount awarded to those appellants by the L.A. Officer towards value of improvements as LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -11- additional compensation towards value of improvements. 9. As noticed already, the cases relating to LAA. Nos. 510/07, 1073/07, 1341/07 and 1742/08 involve acquisition of more than 1 hectare of land. Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 2553, AIR 2007 SC 614 and AIR 1998 SC 2417 the acquisitions in these cases have to be treated as whole sale acquisition. It is trite that the whole sale price will be lesser than retail price. Therefore even as market value of the lands under acquisition in these appeals are re-determined on the basis of the rates re-fixed in this judgment, a uniform deduction of 10% on the total market value of land will be made in these appeals. But no such deduction need be made from the compensation awarded towards value of improvements. All the appeals are allowed as above. It is made clear that all the appellants will be entitled for statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -12- Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they will become eligible by virtue of this judgment. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/- The following citations: “Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Maha Singh and another (AIR 1997 SC 2553), Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyothi Rao and others ( AIR 2007 SC 614) and Gajjan Singh and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC 2417)” occurring in page 6, lines 1 to 5 and page 11, lines 5 and 6 of the judgment dated 17-09-2009 in L.A.A. 107/2007 and connected cases are substituted as “L.A.O. & Sub-Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal (AIR 1997 SC 2552), Gafar & Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority & another (2007 (7) SCC 614), and State of J & K v. Mohammad Mateen Wani (AIR 1998 SC 2470).” vide order dated 05-11-2009 in LAA. 107/2007 and connected cases. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) LAA. N0. 107/07 etc. -13-