L.A.A Nos.119, 140, 150, 151, 249 & 257 of 2017 (Batch of Land Acquisition Appeals)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941** **LA.App..No.119 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 83/2014 DATED 26-10-2016 OF SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI CIVIL STATION,PAINAVU, KUILIMALA,** **2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) DIVISION, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI** **BY ADV. SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN,SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** **SAJIKUMAR, S/O. RAMAN, MADATHUMPARAMBIL(H), MADAKKATHANAM P.O.,KAPPU KARA, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK - 686 670** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SATHYAN** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..140/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A No.150 of 2017 & con. Cases 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941** **LA.App..No.140 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 109/2014 DATED 08-09-2016 OF SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, KUILMALA.** **2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) DIVISION, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI.** **BY ADV. SRO.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN,SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT/T.P.HOLDER:** **BABU, S/O.VARGHESE, KOLLASSERIL, CHITTOORKARA, MANAKKADU VILLAGE, PUTHUPERIYARAM P.O, THODUPUZHA 685 584.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SATHYAN** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..119/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A No.150 of 2017 & con. Cases 3 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941** **LA.App..No.150 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 31/2014 DATED 08-09-2016 OF SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, KUILIMALA.** **2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) DIVISION, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI.** **BY ADV. SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN,SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** **RAJU, S/O. VARGHESE, KOLLASSERIL (PULIMALA), CHITTOOR, MANAKKAD, PIN -685 584.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SATHYAN** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..119/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A No.150 of 2017 & con. Cases 4 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941** **LA.App..No.151 OF 2017(C)** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 48/2014 OF SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA DATED 31.10.2016** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, KULIMALA, PIN-685603 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) DIVISION, PAINAVU.P.O., IDUKKI PIN685603** **BY ADV. SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** **SUNNY, S/O. PETER,THANNICKAL (H), MUTHALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT THANNICKAL (H), MANAKKAD VILLAGE, PUTHUPARIYARAM P.O., THODUPUZHA685605** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SATHYAN** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..119/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A No.150 of 2017 & con. Cases 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941** **LA.App..No.249 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 8/2014 DATED 30-11-2016 OF SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) DIVISION, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI** **BY ADV. SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:** **1 SOJAN, S/O. POULOSE,THOTTIYIL (H), ARIKUZHA KARA,THODUPUZHA, PIN - 685 584. 2 LILLY, W/O. SOJAN,THOTTIYIL (H), ARIKUZHA KARA,THODUPUZHA, PIN - 685 584. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL PRASAD R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.MANJU PAUL R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.N.SREEKUMAR R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SABU P.JOSEPH** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..119/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A No.150 of 2017 & con. Cases 6 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941** **LA.App..No.257 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 50/2014 DATED 30-11-2016 OF SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,IDUKKI CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, KUILIMALA,** **2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) DIVISION, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI.** **BY ADV. SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN LAR:** **SMT.RAJAN, W/O. OMANAKKUTTAN, MADHAVAMANDIRAM (H),PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 542.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SATHYAN** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..119/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A No.150 of 2017 & con. Cases 7 ## **L.A.A Nos.119, 140, 150, 151, 249 & 257 of 2017** **----------------------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** These appeals by the State are directed against the decrees and judgments in a batch of references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) in respect of lands acquired for widening Thodupuzha-Ramamangalam Road (Reach II) pursuant to a notification issued under the Act on 03.03.2010. The extent of the lands involved in the matters varies. The Land Acquisition Officer divided the lands into five categories and the lands involved in these matters are lands brought under Category 1A. The land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the lands included in category 1A is Rs.85,255/- per Are. On reference, the reference court enhanced and re-fixed the land value at Rs.3,68,802/per Are. The State is aggrieved by the enhancement granted by the reference court and hence these appeals. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the claimants. 3. Though these matters were not jointly tried, it is seen that the claimants sought enhanced compensation in all the proceedings based on the same documents. Likewise, the oral evidence tendered by the claimants are also on the same lines specifying the locational importance of the acquired lands. In some cases, there are reports and L.A.A No.150 of 2017 & con. Cases 8 rough plans submitted by the Advocate Commissioners also. It is suffice, therefore, to refer to the evidence and documents in one case and I am referring to the evidence and documents in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in L.A.R No.31 of 2014, which is the subject matter of L.A.A No.150 of 2017, for the purpose of these appeals. 4. The case set out by the claimants in the proceedings was that the land value of the acquired lands at the time of notification was about Rs.4,00,000/- per cent. In support of the claim for enhanced land value sought in the proceedings, the claimants produced mainly four documents. Among the documents, Ext.A1 is the certified copy of a sale deed executed on 12.04.2012 in respect of a land in the vicinity of the acquired lands. The land value shown in Ext.A1 would work out to be Rs.4,13,223/- per Are. Ext.A2 is the copy of an order issued by the Government during the year 2013 approving the land value fixed for negotiated purchase of a few lands situated at Arakuzha Village for the development of Ernakulam - Thekkady Highway. The land value approved by the Government in terms of the said document for negotiated purchase is Rs.3,00,000/- per cent. Exts.A3 and A4 are decisions of this court in two land acquisition appeals in respect of lands acquired for a different purpose. In addition, the claimants rely on the oral evidence tendered in the matters which would give an idea about the locational importance of the acquired lands. The reference court took the view that Ext.A2 cannot be the basis at all for the land value fixation to be made in these matters as the same only indicates the land value agreed to be L.A.A No.150 of 2017 & con. Cases 9 given on negotiated purchase basis. I am unable to find fault with the reference court for having taken the said view also for the reasons, namely, that the same is a post notification document; that the lands involved in the said document are lands situated in a different village and that the beneficiaries of the said document would not be entitled to any of the statutory benefits provided for under the Act as in the case of the claimants in the instant case. The reference court did not place reliance on Exts A3 and A4 decisions also, as the lands involved in the said cases which were subject matter of another acquisition are lands situated about 3 km away from the acquired lands within Thodupuzha muncipal limits close to Thodupuzha town. I am unable to find fault with the reference court for having taken the said view. It is in the circumstances, it is seen that the reference court has fixed the land value of the acquired lands based on Ext.A1 sale deed. It was found by the reference court that the land covered by the said document is not one abutting the road for the widening of which the lands involved in these matters were acquired. It was also found by the reference court that the land covered by the said document is situated about 1 km. inside the said road and therefore, it can only be regarded as an inferior land when compared to the acquired lands which are lands abutting the road for the widening of which they were acquired. Since Ext.A1 was a post notification document, the reference court deducted 15% of the value shown in the document to arrive at its value at the time of the notification of the case on hand and fixed the land value for the acquired lands by adding 5% of the same for L.A.A No.150 of 2017 & con. Cases 10 the locational importance and junction proximity. It is in the aforesaid manner that the reference court has fixed the land value for the acquired lands in terms of the judgements impugned in these matters. 5. No doubt, the acquired lands are lands situated on the side of the road for the widening of which they were acquired. Further, the acquired lands are lands situated in and around Alappara junction. The materials on record indicate that the area is a commercial one and there are various commercial establishments and other institutions of public importance in and around the acquired lands. At the same time, the approach made by the reference court cannot be accepted. First of all, as held consistently by the Apex Court in very many cases, a post notification document cannot be accepted at all for the purpose of fixing the land value for the acquired lands (See **Maya Devi (D) Through LRs. and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.** [AIR 2018 SC 645]). Further, as noted, it has come out that the land covered by Ext.A1 is a land situated about a kilometer inside the road for the improvement of which the lands involved in these matters have been acquired. Naturally, and in all probability, when the nearby public road is widened and improved, there will be a spurt in the value of the nearby lands also. This is one of the reasons for holding that the sale value shown in post notification documents cannot be looked into for fixing the land value of the lands acquired. If Ext.A1 document is excluded, there is nothing on record except the locational importance of the acquired lands to fix the land value of the acquired lands. The evidence let in by the parties to L.A.A No.150 of 2017 & con. Cases 11 establish locational importance is only as regards the proximity of the acquired lands to commercial establishments and institutions of public importance. Land value cannot be fixed solely based on such evidence as the value of the lands in the proximity of identical/similar commercial establishments and institutions of public importance will not be same everywhere. At the same time, the materials indicate that the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low in the context of the acquisition made pursuant to a notification issued in the year 2010. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to remit the matters for fresh disposal to the reference court. In the result, the land acquisition appeals are allowed and the matters are remitted for fresh disposal to the reference court. All the interlocutory applications in the appeals are closed. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR** Mn **JUDGE**