E.K. Devi Amma and others v. Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Thalassery and Kannur Municipality

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012/11TH SRAVANA 1934 LA.App.No.1334 of 2007 ( ) ------------------------------------(AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR.243/2003 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THALASSERY) APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------- E.K.DEVI AMMA, RAMALAYAM, P.O.PATHIRIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.(DIED) ## * **ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 IMPLEADED** : 2. E.K.PREMAJA, D/O.DEVIAMMA, AGED 46 YEARS, RAMALAYAM, P.O.PATHIRIYAD, PINARAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. E.K.AJITH, S/O.DEVIAMMA, AGED 38 YEARS, RAMALAYAM, P.O.PATHIRIYAD, PINARAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. E.K.SUJITH, S/O.DEVIAMMA, AGED 37 YEARS, RAMALAYAM, P.O.PATHIRIYAD, PINARAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. E.K.RANJITH, S/O.DEVIAMMA, AGED 36 YEARS, RAMALAYAM, P.O.PATHIRIYAD, PINARAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. *** LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPPELLANTS 2 TO 5 AS PER ORDER DATED 30/7/12 IN IA.NO.1684/2011.** BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), THALASSERY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR. _LA.App.No.1334 of 2007 ( )_ _**:2:**_ R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADERS SRI.ALOYSIUS THOMAS, AND SRI.S.JAMAL. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI. SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2012, ALONG WITH LAA.1568/2007 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.** ------------------------------------------------------------------ **L.A.A. Nos.1334, 1568, 1574, 1589, 1625, 1626 of 2007, 10, 11, and 672 of 2008.** -------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Dated this the 2[nd] day of August, 2012.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Pius C. Kuriakose, J** . All these appeals are preferred by the claimants. 2. Even though, the learned Subordinate Judge decided the references by two separate judgments, as common issues are involved and as the properties were lying contiguously, we are inclined to decide all these appeals by a common judgment. 3. The properties were in Kannur-I village. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of a new bus stand, within the area of Kannur municipal town. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands under acquisition as wet lands and dry lands. For the wet lands he relied on the basis document No.2026/96 of the Kannur Sub Registry and awarded land value at the rate of `3,690/- per Cent and for the garden lands he relied on the basis document No.3486/97 dated 05/12/97 and awarded land value at the rate of `11,622/- per Cent (approximate). **L.A.A. Nos.1334, 1568, 1574, 1589,** _**1625, 1626 of 2007, 10, 11, and 672 of 2008. -:2:-**_ 4. Before the reference court, the only document produced by the appellants was Ext.A1 document. Apart from the oral evidence, there was a report submitted by the Commissioner. Commissioner inspected Ext.A1 property as well as the acquired property and reported that Ext.A1 property is a wet land. As per Ext.A1, land had been sold for a value of `44,445/- per Cent. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge did not place reliance of Ext.A1 document. However, reliance was placed on the data furnished by the Commissioner regarding the importance of the locality and the learned Sub Judge would re-fix the value of wet land under acquisition at `6,000/- per Cent and the value of dry land under acquisition at `10,000/- per Cent. Interestingly, the learned Sub Judge by re-fixing the value of dry lands under acquisition involved in LAA.No.1625/2007 actually reduced the land value which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 6. We have heard the submissions of Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar as well as Sri.C.P.Peethambaran learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, the learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority, Kannur municipality and those of Sri.Aloysius Thomas and Sri.S.Jamal, learned Senior Government **L.A.A. Nos.1334, 1568, 1574, 1589,** _**1625, 1626 of 2007, 10, 11, and 672 of 2008. -:3:-**_ Pleaders. The learned Government Pleaders would support the learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority. We have made a quick reappraisal of the evidence on record particularly, Exts.A1 and C1 Commissioner's report. 7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation fixed by the reference court for both, the wet lands and dry lands involved in this appeal. It is submitted that the properties were situated in a very important area of Kannur municipal town unlike the basis properties, which were situated two kilometres away from Ext.A1 property, which was inspected by the Commissioner, who reported that though the property is described as dry land in the document, the same is wet land. Even if it is assumed that Ext.A1 property is dry land, then also, there is every justification for increasing the value of both wet lands and dry lands to the extent claimed in these appeals. 8. The learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority, however, would oppose all the above submissions. According to him, Ext.A1 was rightly eschewed from consideration by the learned Sub Judge. In the absence of Ext.A1, there was only **L.A.A. Nos.1334, 1568, 1574, 1589,** _**1625, 1626 of 2007, 10, 11, and 672 of 2008. -:4:-**_ oral evidence of the claimants and the Commissioner's report. The Commissioner's report cannot be relied on, as the same cannot claim much credibility, as the report is to the effect that the property in Ext.A1 is wet land, lies contrary to the explicit recitals in Ext.A1. 9. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having made a reappraisal of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the rate presently fixed by the reference court for wet lands and dry lands is inadequate. As already stated, for dry lands the rate fixed is `10,000/- per Cent, which is much lesser than the rate of `11,622/awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. It is trite that the reference court, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not authorised to reduce the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Jurisdiction is there for the reference court only to confirm the award or to enhance the compensation. 11. We are convinced that the rate presently fixed for the wet lands and dry lands is inadequate. The properties covered by the basis document pertaining to wet lands were situated at a **L.A.A. Nos.1334, 1568, 1574, 1589,** _**1625, 1626 of 2007, 10, 11, and 672 of 2008. -:5:-**_ distance of two kilometres away from the acquired property which was situated in a very important area of Kannur municipal town. The document reflected a value of `5,000/- per Cent as on 5/6/96. Having regard to the fact that Kannur is a municipal town having district headquarters, we are of the view that there is every justification for giving additions for passage of time at the rate of 15% per year. Thus, if additions are given at that rate for passage of more than three years' time, between the date of Section 4(1) notification and the date of the document, the value as on the date of Section 4(1) notification will come to `7,400/-. 12. As already stated, the properties under acquisition is locationally much more important than the basis property pertaining to wet lands. We are of the view that considering the importance of the locality, the value of wet lands under acquisition can be safely re-fixed at `9,000/-. We do so. 13. The basis document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the value of dry land was executed on 05/12/97 i.e., about one year and nine months earlier to the promulgation of Section 4(1) notification. The very same document reflects a land value of `12,000/- per Cent. By giving additions at the rate of 15% **L.A.A. Nos.1334, 1568, 1574, 1589,** _**1625, 1626 of 2007, 10, 11, and 672 of 2008. -:6:-**_ per year for passage of time, the value of basis property will come to `15,150/-. By giving additions for the locational advantages enjoyed by the acquired property over the basis property, we re-fix the value of the dry lands under acquisition in these appeals at `17,500/- per Cent. 14. In L.A.A.No.1626/2007, the extent involved is a very large one (1 Acre and 34 Cents). We have to notice the judgments of the Supreme Court in _**L.A.O & Sub Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal (AIR 1997 SC 2552), Gafar & Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority & anr. (2007 (7) SCC 614), and State of J & K. v Mohammed Mateen Wani (AIR 1998 SC 2470)**_ and make deductions, in view of the largeness of the extent. We deduct 15% for the largeness of the extent, which means that the value of the land involved in that appeal will stand re-fixed at `7,650/- per Cent only. The appellants will get enhanced compensation only on the basis that the value has been re-fixed at `7,650/- per Cent. All the appeals are allowed. Appellants/claimants are entitled to get all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to **L.A.A. Nos.1334, 1568, 1574, 1589,** _**1625, 1626 of 2007, 10, 11, and 672 of 2008. -:7:-**_ suffer their respective costs. Registry will issue decree copies only after ensuring that the appellants have remitted the full court fees payable on the appeal memoranda. Sd/- **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE** Sd/- **A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE** //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE krj