IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 1105 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.4/2000 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ------------------------- V.A.VARGHESE, S/O. ANTONY, C/O. EXPO AUTOMOBILES, PERINTHALMANNA BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.T.P.SAJID RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009 ALONG WITH LAA. 1094/08 ETC., THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.1094, 1105, 1131, 1132 & 1133 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J These are all appeals preferred by the claimants. L.A.A.1094/08 is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.14/2000 of the Land Acquisition Reference Court namely the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri. Similarly, L.A.A.1105/08 is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.4/2000. L.A.A.1131/08 is directed against the judgment in L.A.R.12/2000. L.A.A.1132/08 is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.11/2000 and L.A.A.1133/08 is directed against L.A.R.3/2000. All these appeals pertain to acquisition of land in L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -2- Perinthalmanna village for the purpose of formation of Perinthalmanna - Manathumangalam - kakkooth bye- pass road. In fact, under the judgments which are impugned in these appeals, the learned Subordinate Judge decided a total number of twelve land acquisition reference cases including the five cases pertaining to these appeals. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the lands under acquisition in as many as five categories or groups. Included in category-A were properties situated within a distance of 18 metres of Perinthalmanna - Malappuram road and for these properties, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.32,500/- per Are. Included in category or Group-B were properties which had access to Nilmabur - Perinthalmann road and for these properties, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -3- land value at the rate of Rs.29,500/- i.e. 90% of the value awarded for the properties in category-A. Included in category-C were properties situated within a distance of 100 metres of Perinthalmanna- Cheerattamanna Municipal road and for these properties the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.26,000/- per Are (80% of the value awarded to properties in category-A). Included in category-D were properties which were lying as paddy fields without any road access. For these properties the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.19,500/- per Are. Included in category or Group-E were un-assessed lands and lands which form part of municipal roads. For these lands only nominal land value was awarded. 2. Before the Reference Court, the evidence L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -4- adduced by the claimants consisted of the oral evidence of witnesses AWs.1 to 5. Documents Exts.A1 to A46(a), oral evidence of RW1, documents Exts.R1 to R17 and court exhibits mostly reports of commissioners Exts.X1 to X9 and witness Exts.T1 to T6. On evaluating the evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge would re-fix the value of properties situated adjacent to the trunk road at Rs.26,400/- per cent. This was done mainly relying on Ext.A32(a) document No.839/95 (dt.13/03/95) of the Sub Registry, Perinthalmanna. The amount is arrived at by adding 20% to the value reflected in the document for the passage of two years' time between the date of document and the date of Section 4(1) notification. For all other properties (properties which were grouped by the Land Acquisition Officer in categories L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -5- 'B', 'C' and 'D'), what the court below did was to re-fix the value at Rs.23,760/- per cent (90% of the values awarded to properties in category-A). The appeal preferred by the Government i.e. L.A.A.936/07, impugns the award of the Reference Court on various grounds including the main ground that the court was not justified in doing away with the categorisation. The Government also contends that the enhancement granted based on Ext.A32(a) is excessive. The claimants in their appeals challenge the judgment of the Reference Court contending that the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court under the impugned judgments is inadequate. 3. Very extensive submissions were addressed before us by the counsel appearing for the parties namely Sri.P.K.Babu, the senior Government Pleader L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -6- for the Government, Sri.C.Khalid assisted by Sri.Kumaran for the claimants. The learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the claimants took us extensively through the impugned judgment as well as through the various items of evidence which came on record before the Reference Court. Learned Government Pleader highlighted that the court below was not at all justified in completely doing away with the belting system which was adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The system adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer under his award for categorising the properties which were acquired was rational and should not have been done away with by the court below. The learned counsel for the claimants would support the judgment of the court below in including the properties included by the Land Acquisition Officer L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -7- in categories 'B', 'C' and 'D' in one category. According to them, the potentialities of the properties under acquisition were such that even the categorisation done by the awarding officer was unjustified. The learned counsel argued that the value reflected in Ext.A32(a) should have been relied on completely and additions should have been given taking into account the passage of 17 months' time (after Ext.A32(a) was executed). 4. We have very carefully considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The belting system or the system of categorising the properties under acquisition into several categories based on features such as availability or otherwise of road frontage, or nearness to the important thoroughfare in the locality is a reasonable system which has received judicial L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -8- approval also. Even the court below has under the impugned judgment approved the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in including the categories having access to the main trunk road of the locality in category-A and awarding the highest value to those properties. According to us, there was justification for including the remainder properties also in different categories 'B', 'C', and 'D'. This is because there has to be a difference in the values of lands having frontage of trunk road, frontage of state high way and frontage of the municipal road. Though in the fact and circumstances of the present case where the properties are mostly situated within the area of Perinthalmanna Municipal Town, the difference in the values between these properties may not be much, we are not able to approve the action of the learned L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -9- Subordinate Judge in awarding the same value awarded by him for properties which were included by the Land Acquisition Officers in categories 'B' and 'C'. As already indicated, properties included in category 'B' and 'C' were properties having frontage or access to either the state high way or the municipal road, but properties in category 'D' were properties which do not have frontage of any road at all. According to us, the properties without any road frontage can never fetch the value of properties having road frontage even if the properties are situated not far way from each other. 5. Having re-appraised the evidence on record and having considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar, we are of the view that the categorisation maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer should have L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -10- been maintained by the court below. So maintaining, we re-fix the value of the lands which were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category 'A' at Rs.33,000/- per cent relying on Ext.A32(a) and to a certain extent on the other documents put in evidence by the claimants. In so fixing we take into account the passage of 17 months' time between the date of Section 4(1) notification and the date of Ext.A32(a) document. 6. Maintaining the ratio maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values of the properties in categories 'A' and 'B' we re-fix the value of lands included in by the Land Acquisition Officer in category 'B' at Rs.29,700/-. Maintaining the same ratio, we re-fix the value of the properties included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category 'C' at L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -11- Rs.22,730/- per cent. 7. The learned counsel for the claimants in certain cases argued before us that though their properties were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category-D as if they do not enjoy the frontage of any road, in reality these properties were enjoying road frontage. According to us, the value of properties which were eligible to be included in category 'D' as properties without any road frontage will be 20% less than the value fixed under this judgment for properties in category-C. We accordingly, fix the value of such lands at Rs.21,384/-. However, in view of the controversy as to whether the properties included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category 'D' were enjoying frontage of some road, we are inclined to send back the cases wherein the properties under L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -12- acquisition were included in category 'D' by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Reference Court. The Reference Court shall give opportunity to the claimants to prove that though their properties were included in category 'D', the properties were enjoying frontage of roads. If the enquiry reveals that those properties were enjoying frontage of some road (Municipal road, Panchayath road or even the private road) these properties should be included by the Reference Court in category-C and awarded the value fixed by us under those judgments in category 'C'. If the enquiry reveals that the properties did not actually enjoy the frontage of any road, the value to be awarded to the properties will be only Rs.21,384/- per cent. 8. The result of the above discussion is hence, as L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -13- follows:- LAA. No. 1094 of 2008 is allowed by way of remand. The Judgment and decree in LAR. No. 14/2000 is set aside and the LAR is remanded to the reference court. The reference court will verify if necessary after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence as to whether the properties under acquisition were enjoying frontage of road and if the enquiry reveals that the properties were enjoying frontage of road, the learned Sub Judge will re-fix land value at the rate of Rs.22,730/- per cent. If the enquiry reveals that the property did not enjoy the frontage of any road, the learned Sub Judge will re-fix the land value at Rs.21,384/- per cent only. LAA. No. 1105 of 2008 is allowed to the extent of re-fixing the value of 0.0055 hectares of land included by the L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -14- L.A.Officer in category – A at Rs.33,000/- per cent. But for determining value of 0.720 hectares of land included by the L.A.Officer in category – D, the judgment and decree in LAR. No. 4/2000 is set aside and LAR is remanded to the reference court. Reference court will determine, as in the case of LAR. 14/2000, as to whether the above property was enjoying frontage of any road and if yes market value will be re-determined as directed in this judgment. LAA. No. 1131 of 2008 is allowed by way of remand. The judgment and decree in LAR. No.12/2000 is set aside and the LAR is remanded to the reference court. As in the case of LAR. 14/2000 necessary enquiries will be conducted as to whether the property was enjoying road frontage and market value will be re- fixed on the basis of the directions contained herein L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -15- above. LAA. No. 1132 of 2008 is also allowed. The market value of 0.1396 hectares of land included by the LA Officer in category-A is re-fixed at Rs.33,000/- per cent. For re-determining the value of the lands included by the LA Officer in category-D LAR. No.11/2000 is remanded to the reference court. That court will conduct necessary enquiries as in the case of the other LARs remanded under this judgment and will re-fix the value of the land in the light of the directions contained herein. LAA. No. 1133 of 2008 is allowed by way of remand. The judgment and decree in LAR. No.3/2009 is remanded to the reference court. The reference court is directed to hold enquiries and find out whether the property under acquisition was enjoying frontage of any road. On the basis of the enquiry, market value will be re-determined as per the L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -16- directions given herein before. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/- The common judgment in L.A.A. Nos.1094, 1105, 1131, 1132 & 1133 of 2008 dated 23/09/2009 is corrected and substituted as follows vide order dated 12/03/2013 in I.A. 527/2011 in L.A.A.1105/2008 and order dated 19/03/2013 in I.A. 1705/2011 in L.A.A. 1094/2008, I.A.1679/2011 in L.A.A.1131/2008, I.A.685/2011 in L.A.A.1132/2008 and I.A.684/2011 in L.A.A.1133/2008. 1. The figure “18” occurring in the 11th line of page 2 is corrected and substituted by the figure “80”. 2. The figure “Rs.22,730/-” occurring in first line of page 11 and in 11th line of page 13 are corrected and substituted by “Rs.26,730/-”. 3. The words “and as to the category in which the property under acquisition falls” are incorporated after the words “enjoying frontage of any road” occurring in the 15th line in page 15. 4. The following sentence is incorporated as the last sentence at page 16 after the word “before”. “The award passed by the learned subordinate Judge towards injurious affection is confirmed.” Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) L. A. A. No.1094/08 & con. cases -17- Before the word “and” occurring in page No.17 in item No.3 of the corrected common judgment dated 23.09.2009 in L.A.A. Nos.1094, 1105, 1131, 1132, 1133/08, the words “either directly or through the properties included in category A.” are added as per order dated 12.3.2013 in I.A. No.527/2011 in L.A.A. No.1105/08 and order dated 19.3.2013 in I.A. No.1705/2011 in L.A.A. No.1094/08, I.A. No.1679/2011 in L.A.A. No.1131/2008, I.A. No.685/2011 in L.A.A. No.1132/2008 and I.A. No.684/2011 in L.A.A. No.1133/2008. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) The appellant in L.A.A. No.1105/2008 is absolved from the liability to pay the balance court fee of 19,026/- ₹ and ordered to refund the initial court fee of 9,514/- paid ₹ as mandated in Section 67 of Kerala Court Fees Act, vide order dated 12/03/2013 in I.A. 526/2011 in L.A.A No.1105/2008. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)