IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1020 of 2005() -------------------------- LAR.409/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT-B RESPONDENT: -------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND A-RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ 1. PONNAMMA, W/O. LEELANANDAN, GIRISH BHAVAN, PALLATHURUTHY. 2. GIRISH BABU, S/O. LEELANANDAN, GIRISH BHAVAN, PALLATHURUTHY MURI, MULLACKAL VILLAGE. 3. RANJINI, D/O. LEELANANDAN, GIRISH BHAVAN, PALLATHURUTHY MURI, MULLACKAL VILLAGE. 4. NIKHILESH BABU, S/O. LEELANANDAN, GIRISH BHAVAN, PALLATHURUTHY MURI, MULLACKAL VILLAGE. 5. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN FOR R5 SRI.J.OM PRAKASH FOR R1, 2 & 4 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, ALONG WITH LAA. NO. 809/06 ETC . THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. Nos. 1020 & 1247 of 2005, 149, 694, 809 & 829 of 2006, 1000, 1005 & 1006 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. All these are appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority Inland Waterways Authority of India. The acquisition involved in these cases was for the purpose of fixing up Waterways Terminal. The properties under acquisition in all these cases were in different survey numbers of Mullackal Village in Alappuzha District and the widening of narrow stretches of National Waterway No.III was also among the objectives of the acquisition. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 24-8- 1999. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at a uniform rate of Rs.11,386/- per Are for the dry lands which were acquired. For the wet lands, the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.370/- per Are. For the property acquired under LAR No. 423/02, which corresponds to LAA. No. 1005/07 where existed a building for which the L.A. Officer awarded Rs.78,386/-. The learned Subordinate Judge decided many of the cases by separate judgment, while some of the cases were decided by a common judgment. By judgment in LAR No. 410/02 (corresponding to LAA. No. 1247/05) the learned Subordinate Judge would re-fix the land value for dry lands involved in that case at Rs.25,000/- per Are, thus granting an enhancement of 120% over the value awarded by the L.A. Officer. Similarly the land value for dry lands in LAA. No.1020/05 (corresponding to LAR. 409/02) LAA. No.1000/07 (corresponding to LAR. 412/02), LAA. No. 1005/07 (corresponding to LAR. 423/02), LAA. No.809/06 (corresponding to LAR. 419/02), LAA. No. 149/06 (corresponding to LAR. 42002), LAA. No.829/06 (corresponding to LAR. 418/02), LAA. 694/06 (corresponding to LAR. 421/02) and LAA. No.1006/07 (corresponding to LAR. 424/02) was re-fixed respectively at Rs.40,000/- per Are, Rs.60,000/- per Are, Rs.60,000/- per Are, Rs.40,000/- per Are, Rs.40,000/- per Are, Rs.40,000/- per Are, Rs.40,000/- per Are and Rs.60,000/- per Are. Thus enhancement granted by the learned Sub Judge in these cases in respect of dry lands varied between 251% to 427% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. In LAA. No. 829/06, which involved acquisition of wet lands, the learned Sub Judge would re-fix the value of wet lands from Rs.370/- per Are to Rs.10,000/- per Are, thus granting an enhancement of 2600% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. In LAA. No. 1005/07 the value of the building was enhanced by 20% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. Similarly, answering a claim for compensation for injurious affection of the remainder property the learned Subordinate Judge awarded a further amount of Rs.30,000/- to the claimant in one case. In these appeals, the appellant requisitioning authority impugnes the award of enhanced compensation by the Reference Court both for dry lands and wet lands and even the award of enhancement for building value and severance compensation in some of the cases. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.V.Santharam, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. T.K. Venugopalan, Sri.J.Om Prakash, Sri. Azad Babu, learned counsel appearing for the various claimants respondents. Sri.Santharam would assail the decision of the Reference Court very forcefully. According to him, in cases pertaining to acquisition of land in other villages for the same purpose, the maximum enhancement granted by this court for acquisition of dry lands is 110% over what was granted by the L.A. Officer. According to him, there is no justification at all in these cases, at any rate, for granting enhancement at more than 110% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. The learned counsel submitted that even the enhancement granted in LAR. No. 412/02 and LAR. No. 423/02 respectively towards severance compensation and value of building was not justified on evidence. Counsel submitted that though he does not dispute that Mullackal area of the Alappuzha Municipal Town is a commercially very important area of that Town, the acquired properties had nothing to do with Mullackal area of the Town but were situated at Mullackal North, kilometres away from the commercial areas of the Town. 3. Sri.J.Om Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent however, would support the impugned judgments. According to him, the categorisation by the L.A. Officer was quite irrational and what the learned Sub Judge has done is to decide the cases on the basis of the evidence which came on record. One of the learned counsel (Sri.J.Om Prakash himself) referred to Ext.A1 which is judgment of the same court in LAR. No. 17/01. He pointed out that under that judgment the L.A. Court had re-fixed value of land at Rs.1 lakh per Are. According to him what the learned Sub Judge has done is to make suitable deductions from the value fixed under Ext.A1 and to re-fix the value of the land under acquisition in all these cases based on evidence. He submitted that Ext.A1 has now been approved by this Court by dismissing the appeal preferred by the requisitioning authority against the same. He submitted that the present market value of the property should be at least Rs.2 lakhs per cent and therefore the enhancement granted under the impugned judgment is meagre. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick reappraisal of the evidence available on record in these cases. The properties in these cases were acquired for the purpose of the appellant authority as part of a group or large scale acquisition. The practice of adopting method of belting or categorisation when large scale acquisition is resorted to has been approved by the Supreme Court and by this Court and we are also of the view that adoption of belting method or categorisation method will become necessary and the adoption of the categorisation method in these cases by the L.A. Officer was justified. That being so, the court below was not justified in re-fixing the value of lands for which the same value had been awarded by the L.A. Officer in a manner drastically different as in the present case. On revaluation of the evidence we are of the view that the market value of the dry lands under acquisition cannot be fixed at more than Rs.34,158/- per Are. Thus granting an enhancement of 200% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer, setting aside the judgments under appeal, we re-fix the value of the dry lands under acquisition at Rs.34,158/- per Are. Similarly, we are of the view that in the case of wet lands involved in LAR. No. 418/02 (corresponding to LAA. No. 829/06) the maximum land value which can be awarded for those lands is Rs.1500/- per Are, thus awarding a value of 300% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. Setting aside the impugned judgment in LAA. No. 829/06 we re-fix value of wet lands under acquisition at Rs.1500/- per Are. 5. Notwithstanding the strenuous submissions of Sri.V.Santharam, we are not persuaded to hold that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court in LAR. No. 423/02 (corresponding to LAA. No. 1005/07) to the value of building which existed on the property acquired in that case is excessive. We approve the enhancement in building value granted in that case. Similarly, we are inclined to approve the compensation awarded in that case by the learned Subordinate Judge towards injurious affection of the remainder property to the claimant in LAR. No. 412/02, corresponding to LAA. No. 1000/07. 6. The result of the above discussions is therefore the following: LAA. No. 1247 of 2005 is dismissed. The judgments impugned in all other appeals except to the extent they pertain to award of severance compensation in LAA. No. 1000 of 2007 and award of market value for building in LAA. No. 1005 of 2007 are set aside. The value of dry lands is re-fixed at Rs.34,158/- per Are and the value of wet lands is re-fixed at Rs.1500/- per Are. Appeals are allowed to the above extent, but in the circumstances the parties are directed to suffer their costs. It is made clear that on the total enhanced compensation to which the parties become eligible by virtue of the re-fixation done under this judgment they will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ksv/-