K.G. Padmanabha Pillai v. Special Tahsildar (LA), Railways, Ernakulam & Deputy Chief Engineer, Railways, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR &** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/17TH CHAITHRA, 1938** **LA.App..No. 1073 of 2010 (C)** **----------------------------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN L.A.R.NO. 334/2006 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 11.03.2009** **--------------------** ## **APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT IN LAR 334/06 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM :** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **K.G.PADMANABHA PILLAI, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA, "CHATHURANGI",KARAKKAT ROAD, KOCHI-16.** **BY SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SMT.P.A.ANITHA** **SRI.P.S.SUNIL SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SRI.K.VINODKUMAR (707/89) SMT.M.SANTHY** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN LAR 334/06 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM :** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM.** **2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.K.SAIDALAVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH, S.C.** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **LA.App..No. 1073 of 2010 (C)** ## **------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** - **ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2012 IN O.P.(C) NO. 661/2010 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 01.06.2005 IN ENGLISH.** - **ANNEXURE A2(A): TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 01.06.2005 IN MALAYALAM.** - **ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AWARD NO. 20/2006 DATED 27.01.2006.** - **ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 09.02.2007 OF SUB-COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2009 IN L.A.R.NO. 334/2006 OF SUB-COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF DECREE DATED 04.03.2009 IN L.A.R NO. 334/2006 OF SUB-COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF PETITION I.A.NO. 5554/2009 IN L.A.R NO. 334/2006 OF SUB-COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 05.10.2009 IN I.A.NO. 5554/2009 IN L.A.R NO. 334/2006 OF SUB-COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **ANNEXURE A8(A): TYPED COPY OF ORDER 05.10.2009 IN I.A.NO. 5554/2009 IN L.A.R NO. 334/2006 OF SUB-COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **ANNEXURE A9: TRUE COPY OF DECREE IN L.A.R NO. 383/2006 OF SUB-COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **ANNEXURE A10: TRUE COPY OF DECREE IN L.A.R NO. 360/2006 OF SUB-COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **ANNEXURE A11: TRUE COPY OF DECREE IN L.A.R NO. 366/2006 OF SUB-COURT, ERNAKULAM.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY//** Msd. **P.A.TO JUDGE** **C.T.RAVIKUMAR & MARY JOSEPH, JJ. --------------------------------------------------L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------** Dated this the 6[th] day of April, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **MARY JOSEPH, J.** This appeal is filed by the appellant, who is the claimant in LAR.No.334/06 on the files of 3[rd] Addl.Sub Court, Ernakulam against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2009. An extent of 0.1113 hectares of land in Survey No.295/3-14 of Elamkulam village was acquired for the purpose of doubling of the railway track from Ernakulam to Mulanthuruthy. Notification under Section 4(1) was published on 09.06.2003 and possession of the land was taken on 05.10.2005. As per Award No.20/06 dated 27.01.2006, an amount of Rs.33,72,176/- was awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied with the sum awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, the _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-2-_ claimant received the same under protest and sought for reference of his case to the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). Accordingly, the reference came up for consideration of the court below. The claimant before the Land Acquisition Court has filed a statement to the effect that he is the owner in possession of 12.314 ares of land under acquisition in the case and contended that the land is situated in a most developed area with high potentialities. It is specifically stated therein that the property is lying very near to KSRTC bus stand, north and south railway stations, the CBI Office, CAT bungalow, Kaloor- Kadavanthra bridge and Pulleppady railway over bridge etc, that the property costs `5,00,000/- per cent at the relevant time of acquisition, that commercial establishments, temples, church, mosque and other offices are situated near to the acquired property and that the entire property was surrounded by a compound wall, the construction of which costs Rs.2,52,000/-. Accordingly, Rs.5,00,000/- per cent was claimed as value of the land _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-3-_ acquired and Rs.2,50,000/- as cost of construction of the compound wall, surrounding the same land. 2. The second respondent in his written statement filed before the reference court denied the locational importance and potential value of the acquired property as averred by the claimant. According to the second respondent the land value claimed as Rs.5,00,000/- per cent and the cost of construction of the compound wall claimed as Rs.2,50,000/- are excessive and devoid of any basis. According to the second respondent, the Awarding Officer had arrived at the value of the acquired landed property and the compound wall based on all material pieces of evidence available before it and on the sole ground interference is uncalled for. Based on the oral evidence let in by the claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer as AWs.1 to 5, the documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A12, Court exhibits as Exts.C1 to C4, and the documentary evidence from the side of the respondents as Exts.R1 to R3 and the argument put forth by the respective counsel for the claimant and the _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-4-_ second respondent, based on their rival contentions, the court below has answered the reference in the following lines:- _“(a) Claimant is entitled to get enhancement in land value of Rs.10,91,325/-._ - _(b) That he is entitled to get Rs.5,800/- towards cost of construction of compound wall._ - _(c) That he is entitled to get 30% solatium on Rs.10,97,125/- (a + b)._ - _(d) That he is entitled to get 12% increase on Addl.market value of Rs.10,97,125/- from 09.06.2003 to 05.10.2005._ - _(e) That he is entitled to get 9% interest on the amount covered under reliefs (a) to (d) for a period of 1 year from 06.10.2005 and thereafter @ 15% per annum till that amount is paid into court._ - _(f) Parties shall receive costs in proportion to their success and failure.”_ 3. Being discontented with the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below, the claimant approached this Court in appeal. Specific grounds to which our advertence is sought are as follows:- - (i) The impugned judgment passed by the 3[rd] Addl.Subordinate Judges Court is against the facts and _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-5-_ circumstances of the case and is contrary to the evidence on record. (ii) The learned Sub Judge ought to have granted the land value above the rate in Ext.A11 sale deed. It is contended that the actual land value of the property will not be shown in the sale deed, with a view to get the stamp duty reduced. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the property is having more proximity to the acquired property than Ext.A12 the basic document. (iii) The Subordinate Judge's Court had failed to consider Exts.A9 and A11 sale deeds in a proper manner. The court has failed to note the point that the Awarding Officer went wrong in not considering the property lying on the eastern side of the railway track and involved in Ext.A9 and A11 for fixing the land value and that thereby caused great loss to the claimant. (iv) The reference court went wrong in finding that the property lying on the western side of the railway track is comparatively of higher importance than the property acquired. It is contended that the properties lying on the eastern side in Kathrikadavu area is having more _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-6-_ locational and commercial importance than the area where the properties covered by Ext.A12, the basic document and Ext.A11 are situated. It is contended that the reference court ought to have based the computation of compensation on the market value of the acquired property in the absence of any deed involving comparable land is available. (v) The further contention advanced was that the reference court did not give value and weightage to the oral evidence of AW3, the expert who inspected the compound wall and valued the same and reported it as per Exts.C2, C2(a) and C2 (b). 4. Sri.P.S.Sunil, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, emphatically argued on the basis of the aforesaid grounds in the appeal, that the Reference Court had awarded only meagre compensation for the landed property acquired from him. 5. Per contra, Sri.K.K.Saidalavi, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the Reference Court after appreciating the _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-7-_ entire evidence made available to it, has arrived at the compensation in its proper perspective and in such an eventuality, interference of this court is totally unwarranted. 6. Sri.P.S.Sunil, the learned counsel has invited our attention to those aspects which makes the property covered by the basic document uncomparable to the one acquired. According to him, the property covered by the basic document is situated far off and does not have locational importance and commercial potentialities identical to the one acquired. According to him, though Exts.A9 to A11 sale deeds have been produced by the claimant with a view to establish the importance of the acquired land, the court below failed to appreciate those in its proper perspective and declined to rely upon those while awarding the compensation. On the contrary, the court below relied upon Ext.A12, a deed executed in respect of a property totally non-comparable to the property under acquisition to fix the compensation. 7. We have anxiously perused the impugned _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-8-_ judgment to see whether the court below discarded Exts.A9 to A11 and relied upon Ext.A12 on valid and justifiable reasons. 8. The learned counsel urged in vehemence before us projecting that the court below had erred in not relying upon Ext.A11 as a basic document to fix the value of the land. The court below had made observation in the impugned award based on the notes on award available to him that the property comprised in Ext.A11 deed is lying on the western side of the Railway line abutting the Krishnaswami road, an area of high potential and commercial importance and that the property as per Ext.A11 being purchased for the purpose of construction of a garden in front of the house of the purchaser, the owner thereof must have incurred huge sum. But, it is pertinent to note from the notes on award made available to us that such an information is not there. The impugned award is also silent as to the source wherefrom such an information was obtained by the court below. The acquired property is _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-9-_ described in the impugned award by the court below on the basis of the evidence adduced before it as lying 60 meters west of the overbridge at Kathrikadavu, 400 meters east of the railway track, 800 meters away from Chittor Road and 900 meters from M.G. Road, whereas, the property covered by Ext.A11 was described as having more proximity to Chittoor Road, M.G.Road and other connected roads. The respective properties were also found to be unidentical in the matter of its locational importance. The court below found the property covered by Ext.A11 as lying on the western side of the railway line, having more importance on account of its commercial potentialities and accordingly uncomparable to the acquired property and declined to place reliance on it. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the court below is totally unjustified in not placing reliance upon Ext.A11 is devoid of merits and will not sustain. 9. Ext.A9 and A10 documents were also sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. A _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-10-_ commission was taken out before the court below by the appellant. The Advocate Commissioner apprised the court below through its report that the lands covered by Ext.A9 and A10 are comprised of buildings and those are abutting S.A. Road and M.G. Road respectively. The consideration shown in Ext.A9 and A10 was inclusive of the value of the land and cost of the building situated therein. The court below found nothing in the Commission Report to have a comparative study of the respective properties with the acquired property and accordingly rejected the claim of the appellant. In each of the said properties, presence of buildings was also noticed and the consideration shown in those deeds was inclusive of the cost of building. The Advocate Commissioner had also noted much locational importance to those properties than the acquired property. Based on the oral evidence let in by the Advocate Commissioner as AW1 and Ext.C4 commission report the court below came to the conclusion that Ext.A9 and A10 are not documents related to properties having comparison to _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-11-_ the acquired property and accordingly declined to place reliance upon it. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to accept the argument of the learned counsel that the court below is unjustified in discarding those documents. 10. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel was that the court below perfectly went wrong in relying upon Ext.A12 as the basic document when the property covered by the said document is totally having no features liable to compare it with the property acquired. It is seen that the Awarding Officer also found the said property as situated on the western side of the railway track and of better potentiality than the acquired land. Even then, the Awarding Officer relied upon the document of the said property as the basic document and land value in respect of each category of property was arrived at after giving suitable deduction. 11. The Advocate Commissioner reported in Ext.C3 and C4 on the basis of his inspection that the property involved in Ext.A12 basic document is situated _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-12-_ 1 km away from the acquired property. He failed to state anything in his reports about the property covered by Ext.A12 so as to make it comparable with the acquired property. Eventually, no documents pertaining to similarly situated properties comparable in respect of its locational importance and commercial potentialities were available for the court to base computation of compensation. 12. The learned Government Pleader pointed to us during the course of argument that judgment in LAR.No.312/06 can be accepted in reliance in the case on hand. It is noticed on a reading of the impugned award that the said judgment was marked in evidence by the court below in the reference before it as Ext.R3. But, the said property was not visited by the Advocate Commissioner and therefore, there is total want of materials to show the exact location of the property involved in Ext.R3 and its locational importance. This Court had given in the said case 25% increase to the land value awarded by the Awarding Officer. Ext.A11 marked in evidence in the case on hand was also _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-13-_ produced before the court in L.A.R. No.312/2006 and that was discarded as not acceptable as a basic document on the reason of non-availability of any materials before it proposing comparable features. However, the enhancement of compensation given in L.A.R.No.312/2006 helped the court below to form an opinion as to the meagreness and inadequacy of the compensation awarded in the case on hand. Despite the non-availability of any materials enabling it to compare the same, the court below, relying upon Ext.R3, gave 25% increase of the land value as compensation in the said reference. 12. In the event of non-availability of any document in the case on hand to base computation of compensation, the court below found it appropriate to consider 40% increase over the land value fixed by the awarding officer and passed the impugned judgment accordingly. It is also pertinent to note from the impugned judgment that Ext.A11 was considered in L.A.R.No.312/2006 by the reference court and found the property involved _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-14-_ therein as non-comparable. 13. Evidently, the finding of the court below in the impugned judgment that the appellant is entitled to get 40% increase over the land value is without any basis as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel. The learned Government Pleader also failed to produce any comparable materials despite affording sufficient time. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has advanced an argument that in a case, when relevant materials are not forthcoming either in the form of deed of sales of similarly situated lands in the neighbourhood, the fair value fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer for the land comprised in Sy.No.295/3-14 and published in the Official Gazette could be relied upon for determination of the market value of the acquired land. According to him, the extract of the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary published in the Official Gazette dated 05.05.2008 and produced by him along with the Appeal Memorandum is contextually relevant and could safely be relied upon by this Court. _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-15-_ ## 15. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to **State of Kerala** v. **Thomas** [2016 (1) KLT 502] in support of his argument. The dictum reads:- _“Therefore, the fair value fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer following the detailed procedure under Rules 3 and 4 of the Kerala Stamp (Fixation of Fair Value of Land)Rules, 1995 and published in the Official Gazette can be a relevant piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land under acquisition. However, such fixation of fair value should be within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and while determining the market value based on such fair value, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive or negative factors, if any, of the land under acquisition”_ 16. The argument of the learned counsel is strengthened by the dictum and therefore we see no reason in not placing reliance upon it. However, the court below cannot be found fault with as the extract of the Notification and the dictum supra had not been placed before it for reliance. 17. A glance of the extract of the Notification _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-16-_ placed before us by the appellant would make it clear to us that item No.10 comprised in Survey No.295/3 is a residential plot situated in Kochi corporation with private road access and is fixed with a fair value of Rs.7,80,000/- per Are. Evidently, the acquired property also has tarred Corporation road access. Therefore, the fair value fixed for item No.10 in the Notification can justifiably be taken as basis while fixing the value of the property in the case on hand for arriving at the just compensation payable to the appellant. 18. The learned counsel has also taken us to **ONGC Ltd** v. **Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel** [(2008) 14 SCC 745], where the Apex Court had occasion to deal with a situation similar. The dictum reads:- _“One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Even_ _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-17-_ _if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future.”_ ## The court explained the rationale behind laying down of the dictum in the following words:- _“One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Courts should, therefore, avoid determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future.”_ 19. As observed earlier, 4(1) Notification in the case on hand was dated 01.06.2005 and the extract of the Notification fixing the fair value now produced before us is dated 05.05.2008. As per latter Notification, year of fixation of fair value was 2008 i.e., 2 ½ years after the date of Section 4(1) Notification. In this connection the dictum of the Apex Court in Rameshbhai's case supra is relevant. _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-18-_ ## There, the court also held:- _“The increase in market value is calculated with reference to the market value during the immediate preceding year. When market value is sought to be ascertained with reference to a transaction which took place some years before the acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the year to year increase. As the percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous year's market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate.”_ 20. Therefore, in the case on hand, the fair value being fixed by the Government 2 ½ years posterior to the date of Section 4(1) Notification, in view of the dictum supra, considerable deduction has to be made from the fair value fixed in the year 2008 to arrive at the market value of the acquired property in 2005, the year of acquisition. 21. Considering the locational importance and other aspects and also the fair value fixed as per the Notification published by the Government, it is appropriate to have annual deduction of 15% and half yearly deduction of 7.5%. Upon deducting 15% annually for 2 years and 7.5% _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-19-_ for the 6 months period exceeding, the value of the land per Are would be Rs.5,42,417/- and per cent would be Rs.2,19,602/-. 22. The learned counsel for the claimant has also addressed us about the inadequacy of the compensation awarded for the compound wall covering the acquired landed property and called for our interference. According to the counsel, the Awarding Officer had awarded a sum of Rs.19,335/- as compensation. In the Reference Court, an Advocate Commissioner inspected the property acquired at the instance of the appellant and valued the compound wall around with the help of an expert. Ext.C2 is the report of the Expert. The Expert as well as the Advocate Commissioner had also mounted in the witness box to depose respectively as AW2 and AW3. It is contended by the learned counsel that despite the examination of the Advocate Commissioner as well as the Expert, who is none other than the author of Ext.C2 report, without those being adverted to, the court below confined awarding of compensation to a lumpsum _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-20-_ amount of Rs.5,800/-. According to him, the compensation was awarded by the court below to such a lower extremity was solely on account of an appreciation of evidence in an improper perspective. 23. We have been apprised from the impugned judgment that Ext.C2 was considered by the court below and 30% enhancement was given to the sum already awarded by the Awarding Officer in respect of the compound wall. The court below has also gone in detail into the evidence let in by the Advocate Commissioner as AW2 and the expert as AW3. The court below has also stated in the impugned judgment the reason for not relying upon those evidence as the non-production of the Kerala Building Rules (for short 'KBR'), which was stated to be the basis upon which the cost of construction of the compound wall was fixed. In such a contingency that the court below was declined to consider Ext.C2 and the evidence let in by the expert and the Commissioner respectively as AW2 and AW3 and fixed the enhanced compensation as Rs.5,800/-. The version of AW2 in _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010 -21-_ the box was that the valuation of the compound wall was done by him with the assistance of AW3, the expert. In the specific words of AW3, the valuation was done by him based on KBR. But, she failed to produce the KBR. Evidently, the awarding officer has based his valuation on the PWD rate. The D.V.S. was neither produced before the court below nor is made available to us by either party. The awarding officer fixed the value of compound wall as Rs.19,335/-. The cost of construction of the compound wall was valued by AW3 as Rs.2,13,360/- in Ext.C2. In the box, AW3 has stated KBR as the basis upon which the calculation of the cost of construction was made. But that was also not produced before the court below. The DVS prepared initially by the Acquisition Officer is a relevant piece of evidence and it, if was produced before the court below, would have helped it to have a comparative study of the nature of the materials used for the construction of the compound wall. In the absence of DVS and evidence regarding the basis for arriving at the cost by the expert at such an exorbitant amount, we _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-22-_ see no reason to find fault with the court below in not fixing the compensation for acquisition of compound wall based on Ext.C2. 24. Therefore, there is total want of any reason to find fault with the non-fixation of the compensation by the court below based on Ext.C2. Evidently, the awarding officer had based the PWD rate for computation of compensation for the compound wall surrounding the acquired property. Indisputably, PWD rate will always be lower than the prevalent market rate. The court below had granted 30% enhancement to the sum awarded as compensation by the Awarding Officer based on the PWD rate prevailing then and therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the said amount is low and inadequate. It is testified by AW1 that he had relied upon KBR for arriving at the value of the materials utilised for construction and to fix the compensation. But, that was neither produced before the court below nor those materials are made available before this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, there is total absence of _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-23-_ any reason for the court below, declining to place reliance upon Ext.C2 and the testimony of AW1. 26. Nevertheless, in our considered opinion, the appellant was not adequately compensated and therefore, we are inclined to interfere with. 50% enhancement, if given, to the compensation by the Awarding Officer would be adequate and reasonable. The court below has already awarded 30% enhancement of compensation than that was awarded by the Awarding Officer. Therefore, 20% addition is yet to be considered. The Awarding Officer had granted Rs.19,335/- as compensation for the compound wall. The court below had modified it as Rs.25,135/- by granting 30% enhancement. Therefore, in the modification by way of 20% enhancement as proposed by us, the appellant would get Rs. 29,002/- as compensation (Rs.3867/- additionally). 27. It is urged by the learned Government Pleader, at this juncture, that the appeal being filed with a delay of 360 days, the appellant has no entitlement for interest for the said period. The argument is tenable and therefore, interest _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-24-_ for 360 days is declined. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows:- - (a) The appellant is entitled to get enhancement in total land value of Rs.48,66,948/-. - (b) The appellant is entitled to get Rs.3867/towards cost of construction of compound wall in addition. - (c ) The appellant is entitled to get 30% solatium on Rs.48,70,815/- (a+b). - (d) The appellant is entitled to get 12% increase on additional market value of Rs.48,70,815/from 9.6.2003 till 5.10.2005. - (e) The appellant is entitled to get 9% interest for the amount covered by item Nos.(a) to (d) for a period of one year from 6.10.2005 and thereafter, 15% per annum till the amount is deposited in the court (since the appeal was filed with 360 days delay, the interest for that period is declined.) _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-25-_ - (f) The respondent shall deposit the sum enhanced by us within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - (g) If payment is defaulted, the respondent shall pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the entire amount. - (h) The appellant is also entitled to get all other benefits permissible under the statute. - (i) The costs shall be borne by the parties - themselves. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE** Sd/- **MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE** vs (contd.at page No. 26) _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-26-_ The following corrections are made in the judgment dated 06/04/2016 in L.A.A. No. 1073/2010, vide order dated 05/01/2017 in L.A.A. No. 1073/2010. 1. The first quotation in paragraph 18 of the judgment is replaced with the following paragraphs. “13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors: situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding areas, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-27-_ ## 14. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying _L.A.A. No.1073 of 2010_ _-28-_ periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.” 2. The date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification occurring in the 8[th] line in paragraph 1 is corrected and substituted as **09.06.2005** in the place of **09.06.2003.** sd/Registrar (Judicial) The words “ **and clause (d) of 27[th] paragraph at page 24** ” are incorporated after the words “ **8[th] line in paragraph 1** ” occurring at page 27, of the judgment dated 06/04/2016 in L.A.A. No.1073/2010 as per order dated 05/01/2017 in L.A.A. No.1073/2010. Sd/Registrar (Judicial)