L.A.A. Nos. 311, 316, 317 & 318 of 2013 & 491/2015 & Cross Objection Nos. 44, 48, 49 and 51 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/22ND PHALGUNA, 1938 LA.App..No. 311 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 24/2010 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 20-10-2012 ## APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKUDY. BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR SMT.R.S.MANJULA ## RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT & CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 001. ## 2. MATHEW BASTIAN S/O. SEBASTIAN, CHENGINIMATTOM HOUSE, EAST CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE. R1 BY ADV. SMT. K. AMMINIKUTTY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.WILSON THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2017, ALONG WITH LAA. NOS. 311, 316, 317, 318 OF 2013 & 491 OF 2015 & CO No. 44, 48, 49 & 51 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.** **------------------------------------------L.A.A. Nos. 311, 316, 317 & 318 of 2013 & 491/2015 & Cross Objection Nos. 44, 48, 49 and 51 of 2013 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of March, 2017.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## Antony Dominic,J. L.A.A Nos. 311 and 316 of 2013 arise from the judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda re-determining the land value in L.A.R. Nos. 24 of 2010 and 23 of 2010 respectively. 2. Notification dated 14.09.2007 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) for the acquisition of 1.2459 hectares of land for the construction of a public play ground. The Land Acquisition Officer classified this land similarly with the remaining lands acquired and awarded `1,28,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimants claimed `10,00,000/- per cent and by the impugned judgment and decree, the Reference Court awarded `9,88,000/- per Are (`4,00,000/- per cent). It is aggrieved by such re-determination of the land value that the Chalakudy Municipality has filed these appeals. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. 4. By judgment dated 28.02.2017, this Court has already disposed of L.A.A. No. 554 of 2012 filed by the Municipality and L.A.A. No. 475 of 2012 filed by two claimants and upheld the judgment of the Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 25 of 2010. By the said judgment, the L.A.A. No.311/2013 & batch -2- Reference Court had awarded `9,88,000/- for the adjacent land. Since the land involved in L.A.R. No. 25 of 2010 is similar in all respects to the acquired lands **,** which are the subject matter of these two appeals, the claimants herein are entitled to the equal amount of land value as that was awarded by the Reference Court in its judgment in L.A.R. No. 25 of 2010, which has been upheld by this Court by dismissing L.A.A. No. 554 of 2012 filed by the Municipality and L.A.A. No. 475 of 2012 filed by the claimants therein. 5. In such circumstances, the issues canvassed in these appeals are covered by the judgment of this Court in L.A.A. Nos.475 and 554 of 2012 and accordingly these appeals are only to be dismissed. 6. L.A.A.No. 317 of 2013 and Cross Objection No. 51 of 2013 are filed by the Municipality and the claimant in L.A.R. No. 21 of 2010. By the notification dated 14.09.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 40.573 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos. 287/1, 288/2 and 288/3 of East Chalakudy Village was acquired for the construction of a public play ground. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the land equally with the remaining land which was acquired and awarded `1,28,000/- per Are. Though before the Reference Court, the claimant claimed `10,00,000/- per cent, by the judgment and decree under appeal, the Reference Court awarded `9,88,000/- per Are (`4,00,000/- per cent), as L.A.A. No.311/2013 & batch -3- in the case of the remaining land acquired under the notification. In this appeal, the Municipality is aggrieved by the enhancement granted by the Reference Court while the claimant is unsatisfied with the extent of the land value enhanced. 7. Insofar as L.A.A. No. 318 of 2013 and Cross Objection No. 49 of 2013 are concerned, it arises from the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No. 22 of 2010. By the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act referred to above, an extent of 153.795 cents of land in Survey No. 287/1 of East Chalakudy Village was acquired for the construction of a public play ground. Here also, as in the case of the remaining land acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded `1,28,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, though the claimant claimed `10,00,000 per cent, by the judgment and decree under appeal, the Reference Court awarded `9,88,000/- per Are (`4,00,000/- per cent). While the requisitioning authority is impugning the enhancement granted by filing L.A.A. No. 318 of 2013, the claimant seeks further enhancement in Cross Objection No. 49 of 2013. 8. L.A.A. No. 491 of 2015 arises from the judgment of the Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 2 of 2013. By the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 0.0840 hectares of land in Survey No. 287/-1-5P in East Chalakudy village was acquired for the L.A.A. No.311/2013 & batch -4- construction of a public play ground. Here also, as in the case of the remaining property acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded `1,28,000/- per Are. Though the claimant claimed the land value at the rate of `10,00,000 per cent, by the judgment and decree under appeal, the Reference Court enhanced the land value to `9,88,000/- per Are (`4,00,000/- per cent). It is aggrieved by such re-fixation of the land value, the requisitioning authority is in appeal before us. 9. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. As we have already seen, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was for the acquisition of 3.07 Acres of land. The awarding Officer classified the entire 3.07 acres of land into one category. On that basis, land value at the rate of `1,28,000/- per Are was awarded for the whole land acquired. The Reference Court also adopted the very same method and uniformly increased the land value to `9,88,000/- per Are. 10. The properties, which are the subject matter of L.A.A. Nos. 311 and 316 of 2013 and 475 of 2012, which arose from L.A.R. Nos. 24,23 and 25 of 2010, and which were acquired under the very same notification are having direct access to the Railway Station road. For those properties also, `9,88,000 was awarded by the Reference Court. This Court has already dismissed the appeals of the Municipality and the L.A.A. No.311/2013 & batch -5- Cross Objections filed by the claimants. 11. Insofar as the lands, which are the subject matter of these appeals and Cross Objections are concerned, these lands are having direct access only to the YMCA road, which joins the Railway Station road. The YMCA road lies on the north eastern side of the acquired property. Despite the similarities recognised by the Land Acquisition Officer, with regard to the nature of the land and also awarding of equal amount of land value, the contention raised before us was that since these properties are not having direct access to the Railway Station road, the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court ought to have categorised the land and awarded the land value differently. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in _**Devendra Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others**_[1] , _**Bhule Ram v. Union of India**_[2] and _**Mackinnon Mackenzie Co. Ltd.v. Employees Union**_[3] . He also referred us to the Principles and Practice of Valuation by J.A. Parks to buttress his contention. 12. These contentions were refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, who placed reliance on the uniform categorisation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference > 1 (2011) 9 SCC 581 > 2 (2014) 11 SCC 307 > 3 (2016) 4 SCC 544 L.A.A. No.311/2013 & batch -6- Court. They also referred us to the evidence of the Awarding Officer confessing of equal importance to the whole land and therefore awarding the uniform land value. The Counsel also sought to call in aid Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, recognising the entitlement of the land owner for equal amount of compensation, apart from the judgment of this Court in L.A.A. No. 215 of 2008. 13. We have considered the submissions made. Admittedly, the plot of lands, which are the subject matter of these 3 appeals and the Cross Objections, are having direct access only to the YMCA road and not to the Railway Station Road, unlike in the case of lands dealt with in L.A.A. Nos. 311 and 316 of 2013 and 475 of 2012. When lands of different nature are acquired under a notification for same purpose, the owners cannot aspire for uniform value for the entire extent of land. The land value will certainly depend upon the various parameters fixed statutorily for the fixation of land value. In such circumstances, categorisation or belting is a recognised method adopted in Land Acquisition Proceedings for the determination of the just compensation payable for the acquired land. It is this principle of law that is recognised by the Supreme Court in the judgment that are relied on by the learned counsel for the Municipality. 14. Though this principle laid down by the Apex Court is not open L.A.A. No.311/2013 & batch -7- to doubt, the question that survives to be considered in these appeals is whether the land value that is uniformly re-determined by the Reference Court calls for interference. Admittedly, the entire land lies in one compact block and are situated adjacent to each other. The lands which are the subject matter of these 3 appeals and Cross Objections are having direct access to the YMCA road, which immediately joins the Railway Station road. It is the admitted case that the Awarding Officer has categorised the entire extent of 3.07 Acres of land uniformly as one compact block and on that basis she has awarded the land value also equally. She was examined as RW1 and she deposed that the entire block of land is having equal commercial importance. There is no acceptable contra evidence to disregard the uniform categorisation adopted by the Awarding Officer and the evidence tendered by her in Court. 15. In such a situation, absence of categorisation alone cannot vitiate the award by the Land Acquisition Officer or the judgment and decree by the Reference Court. That apart, even if the categorisation is adopted, having regard to the situs of the land, we are inclined to think that there is only marginal and negligible difference, which does not call for any interference with the judgment and decree under appeal. 16. Secondly, we cannot also lose sight of the principle that L.A.A. No.311/2013 & batch -8- entitlement of the land owners of similar lands to get equal compensation has been recognised in Section 28A of the Act. These principles have also been recognised by this Court in the judgment in L.A.A. No. 215 of 2008, which has been relied on by the Reference Court. In such a situation, we do not think that these lands call for any different treatment as canvassed by the Municipality and in the absence of any distinction by these lands, these are only to be treated in the case of lands which are the subject matter of L.A.A. Nos. 311 and 316 of 2013 and 475 of 2012. Therefore, we are not persuaded to interfere with the judgment under appeal. 17. Since we have already held that the lands are to be treated on a par with the lands which are the subject matter of L.A.A.No. 311 and 316 of 2013 and 475 of 2012, there cannot be any further enhancement as sought for by the claimants in the Cross Objections filed by them also. Resultantly, these appeals and the Cross Objections are only to be dismissed and we do so. **ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.** **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.** Rv L.A.A. No.311/2013 & batch -9-