IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 LA.App..No. 860 of 2001() ------------------------- LAR.1/1994 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANTS/ADDITIONAL CLAIMANT NO.19 BEING THE L.R. OF CLAIMANT NO.5 AND CLAIMANT NO.17: ----------- 1. K. OMANA AMMA, SURESH BHAVAN, T.C.NO.25/1641, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2.P.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, SINDHU SADANAM, PERUMPAZHATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.VPK.PANICKER SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH R. MEERA DEVI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA), DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON 22/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 860 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-ul-Rashid, J. Additional claimant No.19 and claimant No.17 are the appellants herein. The appeal is filed challenging the award dated 29.1.2000 in L.A.R. No.1 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. Separate properties belonging to several claimants were acquired for the construction of buildings for Government Poly Technic. The additional 19th claimant is the legal representative of the 5th claimant. Section 4(1) notification was published on 23.9.1991. An extent of 35 Ares equivalent to 87.05 cents were acquired from the 5th claimant for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.6,973/- per Are equivalent to Rs.2,823/- per cent. On reference, the court below refixed the land value at Rs.12,350/- per Are equivalent to Rs.5,000/- per cent as against a claim of Rs.7,000/- per cent. The property was included in 'A' Category by the Land Acquisition Officer. L.A.A.NO.860/2001 2 2. The extent of land acquired from the 17th claimant was 6 Ares in Sy. No. 429/13 which was included in 'D' category and 78.30 Ares in Sy. No.428/5 which was included in 'G' category. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4093/- per Are equivalent to Rs.1,657/- per cent for land coming under 'D' category and at the rate of Rs.2,463/- per Are equivalent to Rs.1,071/- per cent for 'G' category. The reference court refixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.8,645/- per Are equivalent to Rs.3,500/- per cent. The reference court only awarded compensation for 78.30 Ares of land and according to the claimant, the reference court omitted to grant compensation for 6 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.429/13 included in 'D' category by the Land Acquisition Officer. On behalf of the 5th claimant AW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The 17th claimant was examined as AW.2 and Ext.A4 was marked on his side. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as AW.5 and the report submitted by her was marked as Ext.C1. 3. The claim of the 5th claimant that the acquired property has got more extent than found by the Land Acquisition Officer was negatived by the reference court for the reason stated in paragraph 9 of the judgment. The property belonging to the 5th claimant is situated just adjacent to L.A.A.NO.860/2001 3 Perumpazhuthoor-Aruvippuram public road. Before the reference court, the claimants contended that the fixation of land value by the Land Acquisition Officer is very meagre taking into account the importance of the acquired lands. The reference court found that the valuation of the building belonging to the 5th claimant is reasonable and that the said claimant has failed to establish that the building fetched more value than that fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land belonging to the 5th claimant was catogorised as 'A' category by the Land Acquisition Officer and land value was awarded at the rate of Rs.6,973/- per Are equivalent to Rs.2,789/- per cent. The property covered under Ext.A2 sale deed dated 23.9.1985 was relied on by the claimant for the purpose of claiming enhanced compensation. The court below compared the property covered by Ext.A2 and held that the said property is situated in a place of commercial importance, that there is a shop building in the said land and that the parties to Ext.A2 document had not been examined. Therefore, the reference court did not adopt Ext.A2 to fix the land value of the acquired property. Ext.A3 document was also not acted upon by the court below finding that on a comparison the property covered by Ext.A3 was not similar and similarly situated with the acquired land. Ext.A1 is a certificate dated 16.3.1991 issued by the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara. The said document relates to the property acquired from the 5th claimant. After L.A.A.NO.860/2001 4 rejecting the sale deeds produced in support of the claim for enhanced compensation, the court below took a liberal view and adopted the valuation in Ext.A1 certificate and thereby fixed land value at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent for the property categorised as 'A' category. With regard to the property belonging to the 17th claimant, the court below granted proportionate enhancement on the basis of Ext.A1 certificate and fixed land value at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per cent for 78.30 Ares. 4. Though there are no documents of similar lands produced to support the contention of the claimants for enhanced land value, the court below, finding that the properties covered by the documents produced are not similar and similarly situated, took the view that the valuation shown in Ext.A1 certificate can be adopted for the purpose of granting enhanced value. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent for the properties owned by the 5th claimant will be a just and reasonable compensation. The trial court held that even though the Land Acquisition Officer had categorised the property belonging to the 17th claimant in 'D' and 'G' categories, from the available materials, there is absolutely no evidence before the court to justify such type of category. The reference court also held that Ext.C1 reveals that the entire property lie as a compact L.A.A.NO.860/2001 5 plot. In paragraph 15 of the judgment, the reference court refixed land value for the properties included in 'D' category at Rs.4,000/- per cent. Since the categorisation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer was held to be bad, the entire property belonging to the 17th claimant shall be treated as category No.'D' and, therefore, he is entitled to land value refixed at Rs.4,000/- per cent. 5. The 17th claimant contended before us that in addition to 78.30 Ares in Sy. No.428/5, an extent of 6 Ares in Sy. No.429/13 was acquired for which compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and that the reference court omitted to include the said 6 Ares of land in awarding enhanced compensation. We have noticed the fact that in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer two items of properties are seen acquired which included 6 Ares of land in Sy. No.429/13. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/the 17th claimant that since both the properties form part of a compact plot and were acquired, there is no justification in denying enhanced land value for the said 6 Ares of land. Finding that the properties are lying adjacent to each other, the reference court held that there is no justification to categorise the lands differently. L.A.A.NO.860/2001 6 6. Considering the fact that 6 Ares of land was omitted to be included in the award passed by the reference court, we are of the view that claimant No.17 is also entitled to compensation for the said 6 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.429/13. Accordingly, we hold that claimant No.17 is entitled to land value at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per cent for 6 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.429/13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree under appeal are modified to the extent of granting land value refixed at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per cent for an extent of 78.30 Ares comprised in Sy.No.428/5 and for 6 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.429/13 to the 17th claimant less the amount paid by the Collector. The judgment and decree under appeal are confirmed in all other respects. The 17th claimant is entitled to all eligible statutory benefits. He is also entitled to interest on solatium from 19.9.2001. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ L.A.A.NO.860/2001 7 KURAIN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ L.A.A. .NO. 860/2001 JUDGMENT 22nd JANUARY, 2008