IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 LA.App..No. 1136 of 2005() -------------------------- LAR.161/2003 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT: -------------------- KEERIYADATH BASHEER, S/O. KUNHABDULLA, VANMUGHAM AMSOM, VEERANVANCHERI DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.S.LAKSHMY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RBDC, KOCHI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW-R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1137 OF 2005 LAA NO. 1156 OF 2005 , LAA NO.104 OF 2006, L.A.A. NO.557 OF 2006 AND L.A.A. NO.609 OF 2007, THE COURT ON 03/09/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.NOS.1136, 1137 & 1156 OF 2005, 104 OF 2006 & 557 & 609 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. These appeals arise out of the common judgment in L.A.R. Nos.159, 160, 161, 163 and 167 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy. Though the State of Kerala filed appeal against the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.160 of 2003, we find that no appeal has been filed by the claimant against the said case claiming enhanced compensation. The State as well as the claimant filed appeal against the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.161 of 2003 as L.A.A.No.557 of 2007 and L.A.A.NO.1136 of 2005 respectively. 2. The extent of land acquired in L.A.R. Nos.159, 160, 163 and 167 of 2003 are respectively 1.5 cents, 1.33 cents, 1.68 cents and 1.63 cents. In L.A.R. No.161 of 2003, the extent of land acquired is 3.47cents. The properties belonging to the claimants were acquired for the construction of Railway Over Bridge at Nandi. Section 4(1) notification is dated 24.7.2001. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of L.A.A.No.1136/2005 & Connected Cases. 2 Rs.9,148/- per cent as against a claim of Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. It is not disputed that the acquired lands are situated in an important locality facing N.H.17 joined by another P.W.D. road leading to Nandi town. Nandi town is a township along the National Highway. It is contended by the claimants that there are very many institutions and establishments in the vicinity of the acquired lands. 3. The claimant in L.A.R. No.161 of 2003 who was examined as AW.1 gave evidence for and behalf of all other claimants. Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the claimants. RW.1 was examined on the side of the respondents and Ext.R1 was marked on their side. Exts.C1 and C2 are report and plan submitted by the Commissioner. AW.1 deposed before the court below that the acquired lands are abutting N.H. 17 and form part of Nandi township and is joined by another P.W.D road. He also spoke about the various public and commercial establishments situated in close proximity of the acquired lands. The reference court also relied on Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2 plan which give the picture and the location of the acquired lands and held that the Land Acquisition Officer did not take any pain to fix a reasonable amount as land value evidently for the purpose of paying a very low compensation for the lands acquired from the claimants. L.A.A.No.1136/2005 & Connected Cases. 3 The reference court in paragraph 8 of the judgment observed that the market value of the acquired lands ought to have been found by the Land Acquisition Officer to be much higher in as much as the market value of land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification in the area was around Rs.1,00,000/-. The reference court also observed that RW.1 who was examined on behalf of the respondents did not dispute or controvert the prime nature of the acquired lands which were part of an upcoming township lying flanking N.H.17 having all sources of amenities and facilities which would make modern life comfortable and that there could not be a case that the lands are not viable from the point of view of industrial and commercial development. 4. On an evaluation of the evidence, the reference court concluded that the basis land is a residential property lying rather off N.H. 17 making its comparison difficult or unwarranted with the acquired lands which admittedly lay abutting N.H. 17 offering immense scope for commercial and industrial developments. In Ext.C1, the Commissioner reported about the importance and potentiality of the acquired lands. After appreciating the evidence on record and finding that the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low, the reference court refixed the land value L.A.A.No.1136/2005 & Connected Cases. 4 at Rs.20,000/- per cent. 5. It is seen that in Ext.C1, the Commissioner reported about the commercial importance of the acquired lands. He also compared the acquired lands with the property covered by Ext.A1 and reported that the acquired lands are more commercially important than Ext.A1 property. The reference court also held that there cannot be any comparison between the acquired lands and the basis land and that the Land Acquisition Officer was not justifiable in fixing a too low amount as land value on the basis of the value shown for the basis land which is lying about 4 1/2 Kms. off N.H. 17 at a different place. The reference court also held that the Land Acquisition Officer deliberately chose the basic document which is not a comparable property only for the purpose of paying very low compensation to the claimants. The respondents also did not dispute the locational importance or potentiality of the acquired lands which were part of a township. The reference court further found that the acquired lands admittedly lying abutting N.H. 17 has immense scope for commercial and industrial developments. In the light of the said findings, the fixation of land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent as against the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.9,148/- per cent is neither reasonable nor L.A.A.No.1136/2005 & Connected Cases. 5 adequate. 6. Ext.A1 sale deed is dated 19.10.2000. The property covered by Ext.A1 is situated in an area of less commercial importance. Since no other documents were available to fix the land value, the reference court ought to have fixed the land value taking into consideration Ext.A1 document which relates to the property lying away from the National Highway. The reason stated for discarding Ext.A1 presuming that the property was transferred to inflate the market value on the eve of acquisition is not a convincing finding in the absence of any evidence. Even though the property covered by Ext.A1 is not so important as that of the acquired lands, we are of the view that at least the consideration shown in Ext.A1 document should have been awarded by the reference court. Hence, we fix the land value of the acquired lands at Rs.36,000/- per cent. The claimants are also entitled to all eligible statutory benefits. In the result, the judgment and decree passed in L.A.R. Nos.159 of 2003, 161 of 2003, 163 of 2003 and 167 of 2003 are modified and the appeals filed by the claimants, L.A.A. Nos.1136 of 2005, 1137 of 2005, 1156 OF 2005 and 104 OF 2006 are partly allowed as stated above. The L.A.A.No.1136/2005 & Connected Cases. 6 appeals filed by the State, L.A.A.Nos.557 and 609 of 2007 are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ L.A.A.No.1136/2005 & Connected Cases. 7 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A. NOS. 1136, 1137 & 1156 OF 2005, 104 OF 2006 & 557 & 609 OF 2007 JUDGMENT 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 L.A.A.No.1136/2005 & Connected Cases. 8