IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 LA.App..No. 105 of 2010(B) ------------------------------ LAR.57/2005 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------ CHAMBALON SHANTHA, KANIVAYAL HOUSE, KUTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC FOR R2 SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN, SR. GOVT. PLEADER THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO.109 OF 2010 & CON. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.105, 109 & 110 of 2010 and C. O. Nos.68, 65 & 66 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J These appeals and cross objections pertain to acquisition of land in Kuthuparamba village for the purpose of construction of road leading from Palathinkara Junction on the Thalassery Coorg road to the Requisitioning Authority's Industrial Growth Centre at Valiavelicham. The awarding officer under his award divided the entire property under acquisition into as many as five groups depending upon relative distance from Palathinkara junction. For properties in Group No.1, the properties situated in Palathinkara LAA.105/10 & con. cases -2- junction itself, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.9863/- per cent. For properties included in Group No.2, the property situated within a distance of 1 kilometre from Palathinkara junction, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6,499/- per cent. For properties included in Group No.3, the properties situated within a distance of 1 to 2 kilometres from Palathinkara junction, the fixed land value at the rate of Rs.3,899/- per cent. For properties included in Group No.4, i.e. the properties situated within a distance of 2 to 3 kilometres from Palathinkara junction, he fixed land value at the rate of Rs.2,387/- per cent. For properties included in Group No.5, the properties situated within a distance of 3 to 6 kilometes from Palathinkara, the Land Acquisition Officer LAA.105/10 & con. cases -3- awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,148/- per cent. 2. In these cases in the first instance, the Reference Court fixed the value at Rs.20,000/- per cent on the basis of evidence which came on record. The Requisitioning Authority appealed against that judgment and this Court remanded the LAR cases for reconsideration in the light of the judgment of this Court in K.S.I.D.C v. Vayalambron Krishnan (2008(4) KLT 726). After remand under the impugned judgment, the court below has re-fixed the market value at Rs.13,400/- per cent. In the appeals preferred by the claimants they contend that the market value re-fixed by the court is inadequate and while in the memoranda of cross objection lodged by the LAA.105/10 & con. cases -4- Requisitioning Authority, it is contended that the market value re-fixed by the court is grossly inadequate. 3. It was very extensive submissions which was addressed before us by Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority and Smt.R.Ranjini, the learned counsel for the claimants. Sri.Joby Cyriac relying on the decision of this Court in K.S.I.D.C v. Vayalambron Krishnan (2008(4) KLT 726) would argue that as the properties under acquisition in these cases were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in Group No.3, the claimant cannot aspire for more than Rs.9,000/- per cent which was the value finally fixed by this Court in that judgment. Smt.Ranjini, however, would argue that though the acquired LAA.105/10 & con. cases -5- properties were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in Group No.3, the evidence will reveal that the properties are eligible to be included in Group No.1 itself. It was taking into account that aspect of the matter that the court below re-fixed the value at the present rate. According to her, once it is recognized that the properties are eligible to be included in Group No.1, the properties will have to be awarded much higher value than what is presently awarded. She argued that the court below has found that these properties are eligible to be included in Group No.1. She highlighted before us the last two sentences in paragraph No.23 of the impugned judgment. “The properties were acquired for the purpose of widening of the road leading to Industrial Growth Centre, LAA.105/10 & con. cases -6- Mooriyad, in five reaches. The acquired properties come within the first reach which is nearby to Kuthuparamba town. The total length of the road is about 8 kms.” 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence. We have scanned the impugned judgment. At the outset, we will notice that the submission of Smt.Ranjini that the court below has found under the impugned judgment that these properties were eligible to be included in the Group No.1 is not correct. In fact, in the portion of the judgment highlighted before us by Smt.Ranjini, the learned Subordinate Judge was only referring to the arguments put forth on behalf of the claimants. 5. By the judgment of this Court in K.S.I.D.C LAA.105/10 & con. cases -7- v. Vayalambron Krishnan (2008(4) KLT 726) this Court decided that the correct market value to be awarded for the properties in that case which was included in Group No.3 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3,899/- per cent was Rs.9,000/- per cent. But the evidence in this case will clearly show that the properties under acquisition were situated within a distance of less than one kilometre from Palathinkara junction. This means that we find force in the submission of Smt.Ranjini that the properties under acquisition were eligible to be included in a superior category i.e. Group No.2. For properties in Group No.2, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded value at the rate of Rs.6499/- per cent. We are of the considered view that as the properties in Group Nos.1, 3, 4 LAA.105/10 & con. cases -8- and 5 were lying contiguously and continuously in the same village there is co-relation between the respective values. In fact, the Land Acquisition Officer also has maintained the ratio between the values of these five properties. According to us, any enhancement in the value of properties included in a particular group should necessarily result in enhancement in the value of properties in the other groups also. Under the judgment in K.S.I.D.C v. Vayalambron Krishnan (2008(4) KLT 726) this Court has re-fixed the value of land for which the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.3,839/- per cent at Rs.9,000/- per cent, thereby giving 130% increase over what was awarded. In view of our finding that the properties under acquisition in this case are eligible to be LAA.105/10 & con. cases -9- included in Group No.2 it will have to be found further that the correct market value of the properties under acquisition should be at least Rs.14,947/- per cent which we round off to Rs.15,000/- per cent. Accordingly, we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.15,000/- per cent. All these appeals are allowed and all these Cross Objections are dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23 (2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. It is clarified that we have not decided by this judgment that properties in each group (Group Nos.1, 4 and 5 also) are eligible for LAA.105/10 & con. cases -10- enhancement at 130%. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-