High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-04-07Appeals partly allowed. L.A.A. No.4 of 2011 is ...

L.A.A. No. 4 of 2011 and L.A.A. No. 110 of 2011

Case / Petition Number:L.A.A. No. 4 of 2011 (LAR 190/2005) and L.A.A. No. 110 of 2011 (LAR 192/2005)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Pius C. KuriaKose
N. K. Balakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2011-04-07
Court Decision / Holding: L.A.A. No.4 of 2011 is allowed; the court refixes values as described: 10.85 Ares in category VI at Rs. 9,550 per Are; category IX refixed at Rs. 11,662 per Are. For L.A.A. No.110 of 2011, VI is sustained at the Reference Court rate (Rs. 8,595 per Are); category VIB refixed at Rs. 8,612 per Are. The appellants receive statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 and are entitled to proportionate costs. The bench notes consistency with earlier judgments and applies a 71.15% uplift across applicable categories while recognizing reductions where the extent warrants, ensuring equity among claimants.
Final Disposition: Appeals partly allowed. L.A.A. No.4 of 2011 is allowed with refixed compensation figures as per the judgments, and L.A.A. No.110 of 2011 is sustained at the reference court rate for land VI with adjustments for other categories. Appellants awarded statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A), and 28 and proportionate costs. The decision aligns with prior common judgments to maintain consistency while applying proportionate uplifts and reductions where warranted by extent and category.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Smt. C. Vilasini, W/o Thankappan
Thankappan K., S/o M.Krishnan Panicker
Dev anad T.S., S/o Thankappan
T.S. Kiran, S/o Thankappan
Sudevan T.S., S/o Thankappan

Respondents

State of Kerala rep by Special Tahsildar(LA), Kochi Refineries Ltd., Vyttila at Tripunithura, Pin 682301
The Managing Director, KINFRA, TC No. 2585, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum, Pin 695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T.B. Thankappan
• T.T. Harikumar
• Rahul Shenoy

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. T.T. Josephina (Govt Pleader)
• G.S. Reghunath

Case Synopsis & Summary

These two land acquisition appeals arise from the requisition of lands in Kakkanad Village, Kanayanoor Taluk by the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA). The Land Acquisition Officer categorized the land into several categories, awarding Rs. 5,580 per Are for the predominant category VI land and Rs. 6,800 per Are for a small portion (0.35 Are) in category IX. In L.A.A. No.4 of 2011, the Reference Court enhanced compensation by about 60% over the L.A.O. award. In L.A.A. No.110 of 2011, similarly, values for category VI were uplifted with distinctions for other categories (e.g., VIB). The appellants challenge the apparent inadequacy of the redetermined compensation and contend that wet lands were undervalued relative to dry lands, urging consistency with this court’s common judgments from 2007, which fix higher uplifts for certain categories. The State and the requisitioning authority oppose such widening of the uplift, arguing the categorisation and ratios are evidence-based and that widening the uplift would create disparities with settled claims. The court, after careful consideration, upholds the principle that category III uplift of 71.15% should be applied across other categories where appropriate, and it approves a 10% reduction for large extents (category VI) in determining land values. The refixed values for VI and IX are specified, with VI in L.A.A. No.4 refined to Rs. 9,550 per Are and IX to Rs. 11,662 per Are; L.A.A. No.110 fixes VI at Rs. 8,595 per Are, while sustaining the Reference Court rate for VI in that case. The appellants are entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28, as well as proportionate costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition ActSection 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition ActSection 28 of the Land Acquisition Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer failed to adequately reflect the true market value of their lands, especially in light of a large-scale reclassification of land categories and the observed disparity between wet and dry land values. They urge alignment with this Court’s prior common judgments (L.A.A.No.1070/07 and connected cases), which suggest higher uplift for certain categories and consistent application of the 71.15% enhancement for category III to other categories. They challenge the asserted consistency in categorisation and call for a more favorable treatment of their larger extents, including the 60.52 ares in category VI, arguing the potential underestimation due to extent.” ,

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the impugned judgments, contending that the Land Acquisition Officer’s categorisation and the subsequent value enhancements were based on evidence and consistent with statutory guidelines. They caution that birthing uniform higher uplifts across all categories would create substantial disparities with earlier settled claims and would undermine consistency achieved in other cases. They rely on jurisprudence suggesting controlled adjustments (including a 10% cut for large extents in category VI) and urge the court to maintain the position endorsed by the reference court, cautioning that any broad uplift beyond what is supported by evidence would distort fair market value and equity among claimants.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others	AIR 1997 SC 2625	Positive	Cited to support the principle that, for large extents, a deduction (10%) from the market value is appropriate; used to justify the 10% cut for large extents in category VI.
Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Collector v. Smt.Sreelatha Bhoopal and another	AIR 1997 SC 2552	Positive	Cited for establishing the 10% adjustment for large extents in applicable categories; reinforces the cut in VI.
Shimla Development Authority & Others v. Santhosh Sharma & another	AIR 1997 SC 1791	Positive	Cited as authority supporting the approach to proportionate uplifts and adjustments in land values across categories when extents are substantial.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against L.A.A. No. 4 of 2011 and L.A.A. No. 110 of 2011 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 LA.App..No. 4 of 2011() ----------------------- LAR.190/2005 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. SMT.C.VILASINI,W/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 58,RAJI NIVAS, KAKKANAD, CEPZ PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THANKAPPAN.K, S/O.M.KRISHNAN PANICKER, AGED 56,KARUNA,T.C. NO.X/567,KAROORKONAM, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEVANAD.T.S,S/O.THANKAPPAN,AGED 29, KARUNA,T.C. NO.X/567,KAROORKONAM, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. T.S.KIRAN,S/O.THANKAPPAN,AGED 26, KARUNA,T.C. NO.X/567,KAROORKONAM, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM. 5. SUDEVAN.T.S,S/O.THANKAPPAN,AGED 26, KARUNA,T.C. NO.X/567,KAROORKONAM, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN SRI.T.T.HARIKUMAR SRI.RAHUL SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA) KOCHI REFINERIES LTD.,VYTTILA AT TRIPUNITHURA,PIN 682 301. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KINFRA,TC NO.2585, VELLAYAMBALAM,TRIVANDRUM,PIN 695 001. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.T. JOSEPHINA ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 110 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------L.A.A.Nos.4 & 110 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011** ## **Judgment** ## **Pius C.Kuriakose, J.** Both these appeals are preferred by the claimants. Their lands in Kakkanad Village of Kanayanoor Taluk were acquired at the behest of the Managing Director, Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA). In L.A.A.No.4 of 2011 (which corresponds to LAR No.190 of 2005) a substantial portion of the property was included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category No.VI and was awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5580/- per Are. A small portion extending to 0.35 Ares was included in category No.IX and was awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6800/- per Are. 2. In L.A.A.No.110 of 2011 (which corresponds to LAR No.192 of 2005) for properties included in category No.VI, as in the other appeal, the land value was awarded at Rs.5580/-per Are and for those included in category No.VIB, the land value was awarded at Rs.5022/- per Are. 2 LAA 4 & 110 of 2011 3. Under the impugned judgments, the reference court refixed the land values by granting enhancement by 60% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In these appeals various grounds are raised challenging what the appellants describe as the gross inadequacy in the compensation redetermined by the reference court. 4. We have heard the submissions of Mr.T.B.Thankappan, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants as well as the counsel representing Mr.G.S.Reghunath, Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority. We also heard the submissions of Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned Government Pleader who supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the requisitioning authority. At the very outset, we drew the attention of the learned counsel for the appellants to the judgment of this court in L.A.A.Nos.1070, 1466, 1829 of 2007 and connected cases and other judgments of this court pertaining to the acquisition of various categories of properties for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. We informed the learned counsel of the necessity to maintain consistency in view of the situation that under the common judgment in L.A.A.No.1070/07 and connected LAA 4 & 110 of 2011 3 cases, rates approved are more or less same to the rates awarded by the reference court under the impugned judgments. Mr.Thankappan would then draw our attention to paragraph 4 of the above common judgment and submit that for category No.III this court had approved the award of enhancement by 71.15% by the reference court. The learned counsel would submit that the one of the basic contentions of the appellants was that the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the wet lands under acquisition were proportionately much lesser than the rates fixed for the corresponding dry lands. According to the learned counsel, the above contention of the appellants did not receive requisite attention and consideration at the hands of the learned Sub Judge and this has resulted in serious prejudice. The ratio between the values of wet lands and corresponding dry lands should be different, so asserted the learned counsel. 5. The submissions of Mr.Thankappan were opposed by the representative of the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader. They submitted that the contention of the appellants' counsel regarding the correctness of the ratio between the values of the various categories is not founded on the LAA 4 & 110 of 2011 4 pleadings or in the evidence. According to them, accepting the above contention would result in a situation where there will be considerable disparity in the values awarded to the present appellants lands and those claimants whose cases have already been finalised by this court. 6. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the common judgment in L.A.A.No.1070/07 and connected cases. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr.Thankappan that the appellants have disputed the correctness of the categorisation made by the Land Acquisition Officer or the ratio fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values of various categories. On going through the impugned judgment, what we find is that the contention raised was that the appellants property was eligible to be included in a higher category which would have fetched better value. The above contention was rightly repelled by the learned Sub Judge for the reason that there was no evidence to support the same. We, therefore repel the above contention and hold that the categorisation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer was correct and that the ratio LAA 4 & 110 of 2011 5 maintained by him between the values of various properties was correct. But the final submission of Mr.Thankappan that the same rate of enhancement as was granted by this court under category No.III has to be granted to the properties included in other categories has some appeal. We uphold the above contention and hold that as the value of properties in category No.III has been fixed by this court to be 71.15% above the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the values of properties in other categories have also to be refixed at 71.15%. 7. But we notice another aspect of the matter. Substantial portion of the properties involved in L.A.A.No.4 of 2011 was in category No.VI. The extent of those properties was 60.52 Ares. A perusal of the common judgment in L.A.A.No.1070 of 2007 and connected cases shows that relying on various judgments including those in **Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others** (AIR 1997 SC 2625), **Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Collector v. Smt.Sreelatha Bhoopal and another** (AIR 1997 SC 2552) and **Shimla Development Authority & Others v. Santhosh Sharma & another** (AIR 1997 SC 1791), this court has taken the view that LAA 4 & 110 of 2011 6 if the extent is large (exceeding one acre) a cut of 10% shall be made. Necessarily, similar cut has to be made in the land values to be awarded to the categories included in category No.VI involved in L.A.A.No.4 of 2011. When such a cut is made, it will be seen that even if the market value is refixed at 71.15% above the value originally awarded, the value to be awarded for those properties in category No.VI will be less than what is awarded under the impugned judgment. The land values of properties in the other cases included in category Nos.IX, VIB and VI will stand refixed. 8. The result of the above discussion is as follows: L.A.A.No.4 of 2011 is allowed. The value of 10.85 Ares of land included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category No.VI is refixed at Rs.9550/- per Are. Similarly, the value of land which was included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category No.IX will stand refixed at Rs.11662/- per Are. However, in the case of LAA No.110 of 2011 as the extent of the property included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category No.VI is a large extent, the rate will have to be refixed at Rs.8595/- per Are. However, as this is an appeal filed by the claimant, we sustain the rate LAA 4 & 110 of 2011 7 awarded by the Reference Court for the properties included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category No.VI. Coming to the 5.85 Ares of land involved in this appeal included in category No.VIB for which the court has refixed the land value at Rs.8035/- per Are, we allow the appeal and refix the market value of this portion at Rs.8612/- per Are. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the totl refixed compensation admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants will be entitled for proportionate costs also. ## **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.** ## **N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** srd LAA 4 & 110 of 2011 8 LAA 4 & 110 of 2011 9