A.P. Hareendran v. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Koyilandy

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/4TH BHADRA, 1938** ## **LA.App..No. 573 of 2013 (C)** **---------------------------AGAINST THE DECREE/JUDGMENT IN LAR 7/2010 of SUB COURT, VATAKARA DATED 5.3.2013** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **-----------------------------------** **A.P. HAREENDRAN** **S/O.BALAN, ANORAMMAL HOUSE, POST MOKERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.B.PARTHASARATHY** **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **-------------------------------------------** **THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOYILANDY - 673 305.** ## **BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **vpv** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN & A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= L.A.A.No.573 of 2013** ## **=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 26[th] day of August, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** ## _**P.N.Ravindran, J.**_ The appellant is the claimant in L.A.R.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vatakara. A parcel of land, 60.40 Ares in extent (corresponding to 149 cents) jointly belonging to the appellant and others, situate in R.S.No.140/8 of Azhiyoor Desom, Vatakara Taluk, Kozhikode District was acquired for the purpose of rehabilitating Tsunami victims as per notification dated 30.10.2008 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By award passed on 25.11.2009, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.19,725/- per cent, relying on document No.617/2008 dated 15.4.2008 of S.R.O., Azhiyoor. Dissatisfied with the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants received the compensation awarded under protest and sought a reference of the dispute regarding land value to the competent civil court. References were accordingly made to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vatakara where they were taken on file and ## **L.A.A.No.573 of 2013** ## **-:2:-** numbered as L.A.R.Nos.7 of 2010, 8 of 2010, 9 of 2010, 11 of 2010 and 12 of 2010. L.A.R.No.7 of 2010 was the reference made on the request made by the appellant. Before the reference court, the persons who owned the acquired lands, altogether 48 in number, claimed land value at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per cent, relying on Ext.A1 sale deed dated 30.4.2001 as per which 8.82 cents of land was purchased by AW2 for a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Land Acquisition Officer filed a written statement contending that the land value claimed by the land owners is excessive and exorbitant and that their claim for enhanced land value is not supported by any documentary evidence. It was contended that fair and reasonable compensation has been awarded for the acquired lands. 2. L.A.R.Nos.7 of 2010, 8 of 2010, 9 of 2010, 11 of 2010 and 12 of 2010 were jointly tried and disposed of. Before the reference court, the appellant herein was examined as AW1 on his own behalf and on behalf of the claimants in the other cases. The claimants also examined the purchaser of lands covered by Ext.A1 sale deed as AW2. On their application, an Advocate ## **L.A.A.No.573 of 2013** ## **-:3:-** Commissioner was appointed and the report submitted by him was marked as Ext.C1 and the plan accompanying the report as Ext.C2. After considering the rival contentions, the reference court refixed the land value at Rs.30,000/- per cent. The claimants were also held entitled to statutory benefits. The claimant in L.A.R.No.7 of 2010 has, dissatisfied with the land value fixed by the reference court, filed this appeal. 3. We heard Sri.B.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.K.Amminikutty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record including the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. The notes to the award disclose that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation relying on document No.617 of 2008 dated 15.4.2007 of S.R.O., Azhiyoor, as per which 16.65 cents of land situate in R.S.No.140/8 of Azhiyoor Desom, Azhiyoor Village was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that the lands covered by the aforesaid sale deed are situate in the vicinity of the lands involved in the instant case. The appellant and the other claimants however relied on Ext.A1 sale ## **L.A.A.No.573 of 2013** ## **-:4:-** deed dated 30.4.2001 as per which AW2 purchased 8.82 cents of land for a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- to contend that the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is grossly inadequate. The court below declined to act upon Ext.A1 for the reason that PW2 might have purchased the property covered by Ext.A2 paying a fancy price for the reason that if the National Highway which lies about 30 meters away to the east of the lands covered by Ext.A1 is widened, it would be closer to the National Highway. The court below also held that the claimants had not adduced any evidence to show that the land value shown in document No.617 of 2008 is not the market value. Ext.C1 commission report and Ext.C2 plan disclose that the land covered by Ext.A1 is situate 30 meters away from NH-17. The lands covered by Ext.A1 as also the acquired lands lie on the road known as Koroth road. While the land covered by Ext.A1 is situate 30 meters to the west of the National Highway and before the railway line, the acquired lands as well as the lands covered by the document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer lie further to the west namely beyond the railway line. The Advocate Commissioner has reported that the lands covered by the basic ## **L.A.A.No.573 of 2013** ## **-:5:-** document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer and the acquired lands are situate 70 meters further to the west of the railway line. In any case, it is not in dispute that the acquired lands are situate beyond the railway line and away from the National Highway. The appellant cannot therefore contend that the land value shown in Ext.A1 should be taken into account and proportionate enhancement granted, having regard to the fact that Ext.A1 was executed on 30.4.2001. It has come out in evidence that the acquired lands lie to the south of Koroth road. It was originally a narrow road and was widened only after the acquisition. Stage carriage buses do not operate along the Koroth road. There is also a railway gate after the lands covered by Ext.A1 and before the acquired lands. There are admittedly no business institutions or establishments or banks or other commercial establishments in the locality. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the claimants cannot contend that the sale consideration shown in Ext.A1 should be accepted as a whole and land value fixed on that basis by giving proportionate increase. Though the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala contended that AW2 might have ## **L.A.A.No.573 of 2013** ## **-:6:-** purchased the property covered by Ext.A1, paying a fancy price on the premise that his land would be nearer to the National Highway once it is widened, we are not persuaded to accept the said submission for the reason that even if the National Highway is widened, the property covered by Ext.A1 would not anywhere be near the road margin of the National Highway. It has come out in evidence that the land covered by Ext.A1 is situate 30 meters away from the National Highway. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the National Highway would be widened on its eastern side for a width of 30 meters so as to enable the land owner to have the National Highway as road frontage. However, having regard to the fact that the land covered by Ext.A1 is situate before the railway line and lies in a more advantageous position, we are of the opinion that only 50% of the land value shown therein can be taken into account for the purpose of determining the land value payable in the instant case. 4. The Apex Court has in **General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another** [(2008) 14 SCC 745] held that an increase ## **L.A.A.No.573 of 2013** ## **-:7:-** in the market value in urban and semi urban areas by providing an appropriate escalation on the true market value of the nearby lands evidenced by sales transactions in the previous years or acquisitions, in the range of 10-15% per annum is acceptable. In that case, the Apex Court also held that the percentage of increase has to be calculated on a cumulative basis and not by applying a flat rate. The said view was reiterated by the Apex Court in **Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Udal and Others** [AIR 2013 SC 3111]. As stated earlier, the lands covered by Ext.A1 are situate nearer to the National Highway than the acquired lands. To reach the acquired lands one has to pass through a railway gate which is likely to remain closed frequently having regard to the fact that the railway track is one leading from Shornur to Mangalore and supports very heavy traffic. There is also no overbridge at the place where the Koroth road crosses the railway track. There is only a manned railway gate. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that only a 10% increase per annum can be factored into for the purpose of refixing the land value. Thus computed, the land value payable in the instant case will be Rs.44,188/- per cent. ## **L.A.A.No.573 of 2013** ## **-:8:-** We accordingly allow the appeal in part and in modification of the decree and judgment passed by the court below, refix the land value payable at Rs.44,188/- per cent. The appellant/ claimant will also be entitled to all statutory benefits. The share of compensation payable to the appellant shall stand revised accordingly. The appellant will also be entitled to proportionate costs in this court. Sd/- ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE** /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ## **vpv**