LA.AA No.11/2013 and connected cases (LAA Nos.11/2013 & connected)

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM &** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 2ND MAGHA, 1939** **LA.App..No. 11 of 2013** **------------------** **LAR 173/2011 OF PRL.SUB COURT.,THALASSERY --------------------** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3** **------------------------------** ## **1 STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,** - **L.A., AIRPORT NO.II, MATTANNUR.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAUL VARGHESE M.** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT.:** **-------------------------------------------** **1. K.MADHAVI** **W/O LATE KUNHAMBU, VANNATHIKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, KOTHERI,** - **P.O., MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK-670 702.** **2. V.K.RAJAN,** **S/O LATE KUNHAMBU, VANNATHIKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, KOTHERI,** - **P.O., MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK-670 702.** ## **3. V.K.MOHANAN,** - **S/O LATE KUNHAMBU, VANNATHIKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, KOTHERI, P.O., MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK-670 702.** ## **4. V.K.CHANDRI,** **D/O LATE KUNHAMBU, VANNATHIKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, KOTHERI,** - **P.O., MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK-670 702.** ## **5. V.K.SURESH,** - **S/O LATE KUNHAMBU, VANNATHIKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, KOTHERI, P.O., MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK-670 702.** ## **LA.App..No. 11 of 2013** ## **-------------------------------** **6. V.K.PRASANNA, D/O LATE KUNHAMBU, VANNATHIKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, KOTHERI, P.O., MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK-670 702.** **7. V.K.RAJEEVAN, S/O LATE KUNHAMBU, VANNATHIKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, KOTHERI, P.O., MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK-670 702.** **8. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R1 - R7 BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY** **SRI.ANIL GEORGE R8 BY SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH, SC** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-01-2018, ALONG WITH L.A.A. NO. 415/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sdr/-** **24.04.18** ## **C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. & SHIRCY V., J.** ------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.11/2013 & Cross Objection No. 113/2016, L.A.A.No. 868/2014, L.A.A. No.415/2013 & Cross Objection No.20/2014, L.A.A.No.751/2013 & Cross Objection No.95/2016, L.A.A.No.784/2013 & Cross Objection No.111/2015 L.A.A.Nos.798/2013, 198/2014, 779/2013, 44/2014, 774/2013, 70/2014, 794/2013, 33/2014, 430/2015, 806/2014, 417/2015, 735/2014, L.A.A.No. 537/2014 & Cross Objection No.172/2014 L.A.A.No.567/2014 & Cross Objection No.171/2014, L.A.A.No.501/2014 & Cross Objection No.175/2014, L.A.A.No.572/2014 & Cross Objection No. 78/2016, L.A.A.No.593/2014 & Cross Objection No. 77/2016, L.A.A.No. 627/2014 & Cross Objection No. 86/2017, L.A.A.No.583/2014 & Cross Objection No. 173/2014, L.A.A.No. 620/2014 & Cross Objection No. 80/2016, L.A.A.No.632/2014 & Cross Objection No. 79/2016, L.A.A.No. 624/2014 & Cross Objection No. 47/2015, L.A.A.No. 451/2015 & Cross Objection No. 03/2016, L.A.A.No. 485/2015 & Cross Objection No.112/2016, L.A.A.No. 459/2015 & Cross Objection No.102/2016, L.A.A.No. 527/2015 & Cross Objection No. 46/2017, L.A.A.No. 524/2015 & Cross Objection No. 82/2017, L.A.A.No.484/2015 & Cross Objection No. 83/2017, **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -2- L.A.A.No. 56/2016 & Cross Objection No. 87/2017, L.A.A.No. 487/2015 & Cross Objection No.114/2016, L.A.A.Nos. 56/2014 , 30/2014, 78/2016 & Cross Objection No. 45/2017, L.A.A.No. 174/2016 & Cross Objection No.104/2016, L.A.A.No.388/2017 & Cross Objection No. 10/2018, L.A.A.Nos. 125/2014, 401/2015, 127/2016, 152/2016, 121/2016, 157/2016, 158/2016, 434/2014, 96/2015, 307/2014, 514/2015, 103/2016, 207/2013, 361/2016 & 519/2015 ------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 22[nd] DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Abdul Rehim, J: The above Land Acquisition Appeals and the Cross Objections arises from various judgments passed by the reference court with respect to land acquired for the purpose of establishment of Kannur Airport by virtue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 5.12.2007. A total extent of 442.0269 Hectares (1092.248 Acres) of land situated in Kotheri Desom in Keezhallur and Pazhassi Villages in Thalassery **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -3- Taluk was acquired pursuant to the said notification. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) classified the acquired lands into two category, 'A' and 'B'. The property included in both the categories were dry lands. The lands which are flat, fertile and situated in residential areas with facility of transportation, were included in 'A' category. Lands which are hilly, slanding and situated in interior areas without facility of transportation were included in 'B' category. With respect to properties included in 'A' category, the LAO fixed land value at the rate of Rs.29,305/- per Are, which is equivalent to Rs.11,864/- per cent, relying on a basic document, Sale Deed No. 3192/2004, dated 29.12.2004 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Mattannur. Property conveyed through the said document was having an extent of 6.47 Ares comprised in Survey No.64/2 of Keezhallur Village in Kotheri Desom and the consideration reflected therein was at the rate of Rs.24,420.40 per Are. The LAO fixed the land value by adding 20%, considering the time gap between 2004 to 2007. Thus the land value was calculated as Rs.29,304.48 per Are, which is rounded to Rs.29,305/-. **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -4- With respect to property included in category 'B', the LAO fixed land value at Rs.20,000/- per Are, which is equivalent to Rs.8,097/- per cent. The said value was arrived by relying on a document, which is Sale Deed No.3100/2005, dated 22.12.2005 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Mattannur. The property conveyed under the said document was having an extent of 43.91 Ares situated in Survey No.38/1A of Keezhallur Village in Kotheri Desom. Consideration reflected in the said document, after deducting the value for improvements was at the rate of Rs.24,985.65 per Are, which is rounded to Rs.25,000/-. The LAO deducted 20% from the said value for the reason that the property conveyed through the said document is situated adjoining to a State Highway, whereas the acquired properties are situated in interior areas. Accordingly the land value was fixed at Rs.20,000/- per Are. The land owners have sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the impugned judgments arose from various references made by the LAO. 2. One of the main judgment passed by the reference court, which is relied on in many other cases, is the **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -5- judgment in L.A.R.Nos.164/2011 & 173/2011. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State as well as different counsel appearing for party respondents/cross objectors have conceded that, the above said judgment can be taken as a leading case for considering the factual matrix involved in the appeals. Claimants in those cases contended before the reference court that, the acquired properties in those cases were having direct road frontage to a mud road, viz; Naga Valavu - Elambra Ambalam - Elambra road. It was also contended that the acquired properties were situated within 3 Kilo Metres from Mattannur Town and within 500 Metres from Elambra Town. Further contention was that the Mattannur-Kannur State Highway is situated within 90 Metres from the acquired properties; and there exist a lot of public institutions in the vicinity, like hospitals, educational institutions etc, within 4 Kilo Metres from the acquired properties. The claimants sought for enhancement of the land value at least to Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. Exts.A1 to A6 documents are the documents produced by the claimants in **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -6- those cases in support of their contentions. The respondents in the reference cases had resisted the claim by contending that the value fixed by the LAO is the market value prevailing, fixed on the basis of the basic documents mentioned above, which were marked in evidence as Exts.R1 & R2. Report of the Advocate Commissioner marked in the said case is Ext.X1. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the reference court found that, Exts.A5 and A6 documents cannot be relied on for fixing land value of the acquired properties, because the properties covered under those documents are situated within the limits of Mattannur Municipality, whereas the acquired properties are situated in panchayath area. It was observed that there exists a vast difference in the market price with respect to properties situated in the municipal areas. Exts.A1 to A4 are Sale Deeds executed based on negotiated purchases made by the requisitioning authority itself viz; KINFRA, for the very same purpose of establishment of the Airport. Considering the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the court below found that, **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -7- Exts.A1 to A4 can be relied on for fixing land value of the acquired properties, as they are similar in nature and similarly situated. It was found that the acquired properties in those cases are situated in important residential areas, having proximity to various industrial, commercial and educational establishments. Therefore the land value in both the said cases were enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per cent. With respect to valuation of the building situated in the acquired property in L.A.R.No.173/2011, the reference court gave 50% enhancement finding it as just and reasonable compensation. Accordingly, the references were answered by holding that the claimants in those cases are entitled for land value at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent along with all statutory benefits. 3. In all the appeals filed by the State, it is contended that the reliance placed by the reference court on Exts.A1 to A4 are not sustainable. It is mainly contended that Exts.A1 to A4 are post notification documents, which cannot be relied upon for fixing the market value prevailed as on the date of acquisition. Learned Government Pleader **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -8- appearing for the State had placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in **Special Tahasildar (L.A) v. Muraleekrishnan [2009 (4) KLT 320]** to which one among us (Justice C.K. Abdul Rehim) is a party. It is held therein that, as far as possible the reference courts shall not place any reliance on a post notification document in order to fix the land value. It is further held that, where there is absolutely no other reliable evidence available, post notification documents executed within a reasonable period on 4 to 5 years can be considered as basis, provided a percentage wise deduction in the price for each year has to be calculated. Further contention of the learned Government Pleader is that, the reference court had failed to appreciate Exts.R1 and R2 basic documents relied on by the LAO and to compare the properties covered therein with the acquired properties. It was also contended that, even though the acquired properties under LAR Nos.164/2011 and 173/2011 were included by the LAO in different categories, the reference court had erroneously awarded the same rate of land value in both the cases. **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -9- 4. Per contra, counsel appearing for the claimants, who are also appellants or cross objectors in some of the cases raised contentions supporting the impugned judgments of the reference court. In the appeals and cross objections filed by them enhancement of the compensation was sought for than the value fixed by the reference court, on various grounds. It was contended that, Exts. A1 to A4 cannot be discarded as post notification documents, because those are Sale Deeds through which the requisitioning authority had made negotiated purchases for the very same purpose. It is pointed out that, even though the date of those documents are in the year 2009 and 2010, the documents recitals of those itself will reveal that, consideration for such purchases were fixed through negotiations conducted by the 'District Level Purchase Committee' (DLPC) in the year 2008, exactly on 7.11.2008. Therefore it is contended that the price reflected in the documents were agreed upon in the year 2008, which is only about one year later than publication of the Section 4 (1) notification in the present cases. It is their further **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -10- contention that, the basic documents relied on by the LAO (Exts.R1 and R2) are sale instances with respect to lands situated far away from the acquired properties and the land covered thereunder are not at all comparable with the acquired properties. It is further pointed out that the comparability of the acquired properties with that of the properties covered under Exts.A1 to A4, were clearly proved before the reference court through the reports of the Advocate Commissioners, produced in almost all the cases. It is also pointed that, the acquired properties in the cases at hand are situated in Kotheri Desom and are having access to the Panchayath Road viz; Nagavalavu - Elambara - Moorkhanparamba Road (via) Elambara Ambalam. It is further pointed out that, in majority of the above appeals, the acquired properties are having frontage either to the above said Panchayath road or to mud roads having width of 6 to 10 feet, leading to the above said Panchayat Road. Further it was specifically pointed out that, the Commission Reports filed in each of the above cases would reveal that the properties covered under Exts.A1 to A4 are not having **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -11- any road frontage. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the description of the boundaries noted in the schedule of Exts.A1 to A4 documents to point out that the properties were situated not adjoining to any public road. Pointing out to the recitals in those documents, it was illustrated that the properties covered under those documents are plantations having no road access. Referring to Ext.A4 document, it is further argued that, the vendors are none other than the cross objectors in some of the appeals, which pertains to their own land acquired, with respect to which no negotiated sale was agreed upon. It is contended that they have not agreed for negotiated sales of the properties covered under those appeals only because the properties in question were situated in a better position than the properties for which negotiated sale was agreed upon. 5. Learned Government Pleader had produced copies of the 'notes to award' prepared by the LAO in two of the batch cases, for our perusal. He had also produced copy of the sketch prepared by the LAO with respect to the acquired properties, in which the properties covered by the **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -12- basic documents, properties acquired in an earlier notification, the state highway and the panchayat road etc. are clearly marked. While evaluating the reliability of the basic documents for fixation of market value of the acquired properties, it is to be noted that Exts.R1 and R2 are Sale Deeds executed in the year 2004 and 2005, respectively. The LAO awarded land value for properties included in 'A' category by giving 20% enhancement from the value reflected in Ext.R2 document. With respect to property included in 'B' category the LAO had reduced 20% from the value reflected in Ext.R1. On a perusal of the sketch produced, it is evident that, properties covered under Exts.R1 and R2 documents are situated far away from the acquired properties. Ext.R1 is a property situated adjoining to Mattannur - Kannur State highway. It is not a property situated within the area earmarked for acquisition for the purpose in question. Property covered under Ext.R1 is situated in Mattannur Desom, whereas the acquired properties are in Kotheri Desom. On a perusal of the commission reports in some of the cases it is evident that **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -13- the Advocate Commissioners had reported that the properties covered under Exts.R1 and R2 are not at all comparable with the acquired properties. 6. The question to be decided is as to whether the reliance placed by the reference court on Exts.A1 to A4 can be sustained or not. We take note of the settled precedents that, as far as possible the post notification exemplars cannot be accepted as basis for fixing the market value prevailing on the date of acquisition. But in the case at hand, Exts.A1 to A4 are Sale Deeds executed based on negotiated purchase made by the very same requisitioning authority for the very same purpose; and those are lands covered under the very same notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The recitals in those documents would reveal that the price was arrived by way of negotiations conducted by the DLPC with the vendors on 7.11.2008. Therefore it is evident that, the negotiated value was arrived within a period of about one year from the date of the Section 4 (1) notification in the present cases. We are of the considered opinion that, even though those **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -14- documents, can be termed technically as post notification documents, the reliance placed by the reference court need not be contemned, those being purchases made with respect to properties covered under the very same notification by the requisitioning authority themselves, for the same purpose and within the same area, based on the value negotiated and settled within one year of the date of acquisition. 7. Learned Government Pleader raised vehement contentions that, the land value reflected in Exts.A1 to A4 are the negotiated price arrived on taking into consideration of the component of solatium and additional land value, which will be paid in the case of acquisition proceedings. Therefore it is contended that, even if any reliance has to be placed on Exts.A1 to A4, the land value reflected in those documents need to be deducted by excluding those components. The above argument was controverted by counsel appearing for the claimants/party appellants/cross objectors. In this regard, the recitals in Exts.A1 to A4 assumes importance. In those documents **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -15- itself it is mentioned that, the value was arrived on the basis of negotiations conducted by the DLPC with the land owners and that the value was arrived taking note of the land acquisition compensation and the component of solatium. There is no mention about the component of additional land value, as contended by the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader had placed for our perusal the minutes of the meeting for negotiation, wherein some calculations are shown as to how the land value was arrived. Even though the components of additional land value was included in such calculations, the same cannot be considered as evidence, because the recitals contained in Exts.A1 to A4 mention only about the component of solatium. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that, the component of additional land value was also taken into consideration at the time of negotiation and therefore the land value reflected in the documents would take in the component of additional land value also. It is pertinent to note that, the State had not chosen to examine the LAO or any other officer, who is a **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -16- member of the DLPC, in any of these cases. The only evidence available before the court below are the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A4 and the reports of the Advocate Commissioner comparing the similarity and similar nature of the lands. It has come out in evidence that the properties covered under Exts.A1 to A4 are lands which are not having any direct access or road frontage. Where as the claimants were able to establish before the reference court that, in almost all the cases the acquired properties are having road frontage to panchayat road or mud roads leading to the panchayat road. Hence the question to be considered is as to whether the land value fixed by the reference court relying on Exts.A1 to A4 need to be accepted or not. 8. It is pertinent to note that the land value reflected in Ext.A1 to A4 is at the rate of Rs.27,000/- per cent. The reference court found that the properties covered under Exts.A1 to A4 can be relied on for fixing the land value of the acquired properties, as it is similar in nature and similarly situated. But the observations contained in the **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -17- judgment in LAR 164/2011 and 173/2011 is that; “it is of negotiated purchase and based on Exts.A1 to A4 and on some guess work it is found that the acquired property situating in an important residential area and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was insufficient and is liable to be enhanced. So, considering the proximity of the land to industrial, commercial and educational establishments etc and nearest to Mattannur town etc. taking into consideration the land value enhanced to a sum of Rs.20,000/- per cent as it would be just and reasonable to the land value of the acquired land in both the cases.” 9. Counsel appearing for the claimants/ appellants/cross objectors have raised vehement contention against the above quoted findings. It is pointed out that the land covered under Exts.A1 to A4 are inferior in nature and prominence. Therefore the reference court ought to have fixed a higher land value than the negotiated price reflected in Exts.A1 to A4, is the contention. ## **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -18- 10. Before deciding the question regarding reasonableness or justifiability of the land value fixed for the acquired properties, we have to consider the sustainability of the categorisation made by the LAO. As observed above, it has come out in evidence in clear terms that, except in a few cases, the acquired properties are having frontage either to the panchayat road or to mud roads leading to the panchayat road. The basis for the categorization made by the LAO is the facility for access to road. The catergorisation described with respect to properties included in category 'A' is; “with the facility for transportation”. With respect to 'B' category, it is described as; “interior areas with lesser transportation facility”. We are of the opinion that the basis mentioned as above with respect to the categorization is too vague and unrealistic. The LAO ought to have categorized the property based on availability road frontage/road access. As observed above, this Court is convinced that, except in few cases, the acquired lands are having road frontage. It has also come out in evidence that, the properties covered under Exts.A1 **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -19- to A4 are properties without having any road frontage or direct access to any roads. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that, the acquired properties which are having road frontage are situated in a better prominence than the properties covered under Exts.A1 to A4. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that, the acquired land in some of the cases, which are not situated with any direct access to any of the roads, are similar in nature and similarly situated with that of the properties covered under Exts.A1 to A4. Hence it is to be held that, land value of properties which are having no direct access to any road need to be fixed in par with the value reflected in Exts.A1 to A4, less the component of solatium included in the negotiated price. At the same time those properties having direct road access need to be given with an enhanced land value. The value reflected in Exts.A1 to A4 is Rs.27,000/- per cent. By excluding the 30% component of solatium included in the negotiated value of purchase, the land value will work out to Rs.20,769.23, which can be rounded off to Rs.20,770/-. We are inclined to fix the land value with respect to acquired **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -20- properties covered under the above appeals, which are not having direct road access, at the above said amount. With respect to properties having road access (road frontage either to Panchayat Road or to any mud road leading to the Panchayat road) we are inclined to fix the land value at 25% above the value so fixed. Thus, the land value in those cases will work out to Rs.25,962.50 per cent, which can be rounded off to Rs.25,963/-. 11. Based on the above findings arrived hereinabove, each of the appeals and in respective cross objections need to be dealt with separately; ## (a) **LAA No.11/2013 & CO No.113/2016 (LAR 173/2011)** The property acquired in this case is having road access as revealed from the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Hence the land value is fixed at the rate of Rs.25,963/- per cent. The reference court had granted 50% increase with respect to value of the building. Eventhough the learned Government Pleader had challenged the increase awarded in the structural value of the building, we **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -21- are not inclined to interfere, because the total value of the residential building is fixed only at Rs.1,35,546/-. It is noticed that the appellant had limited the land value claimed in the cross objection at Rs.23,000/- per cent and the court fee was paid only on the said basis. But in view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chandrashekhar and others V. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 2009 SC 3012)** and the subsequent decision in **Narendra and others V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2017 KHC 6642)** we are inclined to permit the cross objector for making payment of the deficit court fee. It is made clear that the cross objector will be entitled for the benefits only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.23,000/- per cent only. ## (b) **LAA No.868/2014 (LAR No. 164/2011)** The respondents/claimants have not filed any separate appeal or cross objection against the judgment of the reference court. Hence we are dismissing the appeal filed **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -22- by the State, by confirming the judgment of the reference court. ## (c) **LAA No.415/2013 & CO No.20/2014 (LAR 160/2011)** It has come out in evidence through report of the Advocate Commissioner that the property acquired contains Rubber trees and is facing panchayat mud road. The sketch prepared by the Village Officer attached to the report of the Advocate Commissioner would also indicate that the western boundary of the property is the panchayat road. Hence the property is included in the higher category and the land value is re-fixed at Rs.25,963/- per cent. It is noticed that the claim in the cross appeal is limited to Rs.25,000/- per cent. It is made clear that the cross objectors will be entitled to the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.25,000/- per cent only. ## (d) **LAA No.751/2013 & CO No.95/2016(LAR 166/2011)** From the report of the Advocate Commissioner it is evident that the property acquired is having direct access to panchayat road. Hence the land value is re-fixed at ## **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -23- Rs.25,963/-. It is noticed that the claim in the cross objection is Rs.25,000/-. Hence the cross objector will be entitled for the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.25,000/- per cent only. ## (e) **LAA No.784/2013 & CO No.111/2015 (LAR 128/2011)** It has come out in evidence through the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the property acquired is plain garden land full of Rubber trees situated in the residential area having direct mud road access. Therefore the land value is re-fixed at Rs.25,963/- per cent. It is noticed that the claim in the cross objection is limited to Rs.20,000/- per cent. Hence the cross objector will be entitled for the benefit only on payment of deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.20,000/- per cent only. ## (f) **LAA Nos. 798/2013 & 198/2014 (LAR No. 154/2011)** The State as well as the claimants have filed appeal against the judgment of the reference court. In the report of **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -24- the Advocate Commissioner which is marked in evidence it is mentioned that the property is covered with Cashew trees and is having direct frontage to the 12 feet panchayat mud road. Hence the land value is re-fixed at Rs.25,963/-. The appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed. The appeal by the claimants is allowed by enhancing the land value to Rs.25,963/-. In the appeal filed by the claimant the court fee is limited to Rs.19,000/-. Hence the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the benefit only on payment of deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.19,000/- per cent only. ## (g) **LAA Nos.779/2013 & 44/2014 (LAR No. 151/2011) LAA Nos.774/2013 & 70/2014 (LAR No. 155/2011) LAA Nos.794/2013 & 33/2014 (LAR No. 156/2011)** Both the State as well as the claimants have filed appeals against the judgments in all the 3 reference cases disposed of by the court below through a common judgment. The commission report marked in evidence in the above said cases would indicate that the properties are Cashew plantations having direct mud road frontage **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -25- leading to the panchayat road. Hence the land value in all these cases is re-fixed at Rs.25,963/- per cent. The appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The appeals by the claimants are allowed by enhancing the land value to Rs.25,963/-. The claim in the appeals filed by the claimants is limited to Rs.19,000/- per cent. Hence the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the benefit only on payment of deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.19,000/- per cent only. ## (h) **LAA Nos.430/2015 & 806/2014 (LAR No. 88/2011) LAA Nos.417/2015 & 735/2014 (LAR No. 159/2011)** Both the State as well as the claimants have filed appeals against the judgments of the reference court in both the cases. It is proved in evidence that the properties acquired are having frontage of mud road leading to the panchayat road, having a width of 6 to 8 feet. Therefore the appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The land value is refixed at Rs.25,963/- per cent by partly allowing the appeals filed by the claimants. The claim in the appeals filed by the claimants are limited to Rs.19,000/-. Hence the **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -26- appellants/claimants will be entitled for the benefit only on payment of deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.19,000/- per cent only. In LAA 735/2014 the appellant is also challenging the finding of the reference court through which his claim for payment of land value for an excess extent of 38.5 cents, was declined. The claimant had filed Ext.A1 to A13 documents to prove that he is holding title and possession over an extent of 3.90 acres of land. In the report of the Advocate Commissioner it is mentioned that the properties covered in LAR 159/2011 is having a total extent of 2.68 acres. The Advocate Commissioner had reported that there exist a surplus land measuring 38.5 cents. According to the claimant the said surplus extent belongs to him as covered by the title deeds. Exhibit X1 (a) plan is produced along with report of the Advocate Commissioner. Two plots having extent of 18 ½ cents and 20 cents are specifically marked on the two sides of the acquired land. The Village Officer was examined as AW3. He had categorically deposed before the court that the said two plots are surplus land, as per the **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -27- village records. The claimants have produced Exts.A14 and A15 which are the replies given by the Village Officer under the Right to Information Act. It is contended that those documents would reveal that no surplus land (excess land) was taken over possession from the claimant or his predecessor in interest. It would indicate that the surplus land has been taken possession from Karyath Abdullakutty and K.S. Kavery Amma. Therefore it is contended that the above said 38 ½ cents of land belongs to the claimant and that he is entitled for compensation with respect to acquisition of the said extent. The Advocate Commissioner had reiterated that a ridge of old stone were seen as boundary on all the side of the two plots separating it from the extent of land acquired from the claimant. Eventhough the Village Officer deposed that the claimant is having title over 3.90 acres of land and that he is paying basic tax for the said extent, his testimony is to the effect that the two specific portions marked as surplus land are land available with the village office as excess land surrendered under the Land Reforms Act. It is the case of the Village Officer that **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -28- those two plots having measurement of 18 ½ and 20 cents, situated respectively on the western and southern side of the land acquired from the claimant, was the land taken over possession by the State as surplus land (excess land) and distributed in favour of others. Therefore the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation with respect to the said extent of land. It is to be noted that, the notification was issued only for acquisition of 2.68 acres of the land comprised in RS 86/1 from the claimant. There is no evidence to show that the claimant has made any objection with respect to any discrepancy in the extent of land, before the land acquisition officer, at the time of the award enquiry. It is evident that the claimant have received compensation with respect to the extent of 2.68 acres. It is only before the reference court that a claim was raised for the first time that he is entitled for land value with respect to the additional extent of 38.5 cents. Eventhough the claimant could produce title deeds to show that he is having title for an extent of 3.90 acres, nothing was produced to establish **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -29- that the surplus extent of 38.5 cents was in his possession and that the land acquisition officer had taken over that extent of land from the possession of the claimant. It has come out in evidence that the said land remained in custody of the Village Office, as excess land and which was distributed to others. It is seen that the claimant has not raised any claim with respect to that extent of 38.5 cents, when acquisition of the said land was made and which the compensation was paid to others. The claimant have not impleaded any of the parties from whom the said land was taken over possession or to whom the compensation was paid. Under the above mentioned circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the claimant have not succeeded in proving before the court below that he is entitled to get compensation with respect to the said extent of 38.5 cents mentioned above. The appeal will stand dismissed to the above extent. **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -30- ## (i) **LAA No.537/2014 & CO No.172/2014 (LAR 135/2011), LAA No.567/2014 & CO No.171/2014 (LAR 136/2011), LAA No.501/2014 & CO No.175/2014 (LAR 137/2011)** The above appeals are filed by the State and the Cross Objection are filed by the claimants. All the 3 cases were disposed of by the reference court through a common judgment. The report of the Advocate Commissioner would indicate that all the properties were having direct access to a mud road leading to the panchayat road. Therefore it is held that the cross objectors/claimants are entitled for enhancement of the land value at the rate of Rs.25,963/- per cent. Hence the State appeals are hereby dismissed. The cross objections are allowed to the above extent. It is noticed that in the cross objection the claim was limited to Rs.20,000/- per cent. Hence the cross objectors/claimants will be entitled to the benefits only on payment deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.20,000/- per cent only. **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -31- ## (j) **LAA No.572/2014 & CO No.78/2016 (LAR 139/2011) LAA No.593/2014 & CO No.77/2016 (LAR 140/2011) LAA No.627/2014 & CO No.86/2017 (LAR 144/2011)** These appeals are filed by the State and the claimants have filed the cross objections. It has come out in evidence through the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the properties covered under all the 3 cases are Rubber plantations and Cashew plantations. It is specifically mentioned that the properties are having frontage to mud road leading to the panchayat road. Hence it is held that the cross objectors/claimants are entitled for refixation of land value at Rs.25,963/- per cent. Hence the appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The cross objections are allowed to the above extent. It is noticed that the claimants have limited their claim to Rs.20,000/- in the cross objections. Hence the cross objectors/claimants will be entitled to get the benefits only on payment of deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.20,000/- per cent only. **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -32- ## (k) **LAA No.583/2014 & CO No.173/2014 (LAR 46/2011) LAA No.620/2014 & CO No.80/2016 (LAR 47/2011) LAA No.632/2014 & CO No.79/2016 (LAR 48/2011) LAA No.624/2014 & CO No.47/2015 (LAR 81/2011)** The State had filed these appeals against a common judgment of the reference court in all the 4 cases. The cross objections are filed by the claimants. It is proved in evidence through report of the Advocate Commissioner that the properties covered under these cases are garden land having Cashew plants. It is specifically mentioned that the properties are having direct access to the mud road leading to the panchayat road. Hence it is held that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of land value to the tune of Rs.25,963/- per cent. The appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The cross objections are allowed to the above extent. It is noticed that the claimants have limited their claim for to Rs.20,000/-. Hence the cross objectors/claimants will be entitled for the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent only. **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -33- ## (l) **LAA No.451/2015 & CO No.103/2016 (LAR 143/2011) LAA No.485/2015 & CO No.112/2016 (LAR 145/2011) LAA No.459/2015 & CO No.102/2016 (LAR 146/2011)** All the 3 cases were disposed of through a common judgment of the reference court. The State had filed appeals in all the 3 cases. The claimants have filed the cross objections. It has come out in evidence through the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the properties covered in all the cases are plain garden land having Rubber plantation and dwelling houses. It is specifically mentioned that the properties are having direct frontage of the mud road leading to the panchayat road. Therefore it is held that the cross objectors/claimants are entitled for enhancement of the land value at Rs.25,963/- per cent. The appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The cross objections are allowed to the above extent. It is noticed that the cross objectors have limited their claim for land value to Rs.20,000/- per cent. Hence the cross objectors/claimants will be entitled to the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent only. -34- **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** ## (m) **LAA No.527/2015 & CO No.46/2017 (LAR No.82/2011) LAA No.524/2015 & CO No.82/2017 (LAR No.49/2011)** The appeals filed by the State and Cross Objections filed by the claimants are against the common judgment of the reference court in both the above cases along with some other cases. It is proved in evidence through report of the Advocate Commissioner that the properties covered are having access to the mud road leading to the panchayat road and that the mud road is having a width of 10 feet and it is motorable. Therefore we hold that the cross objectors are entitled for enhancement of the land value at Rs.25,963/- per cent. Hence the appeal filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The Cross Objections are allowed to the above extent. It is noticed that the claimants have limited their claim for land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent. Hence the cross objectors/claimants are entitled to the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent only. **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -35- ## (n) **LAA No.484/2015 & CO No.83/2015 (LAR 133/2011) LAA No.56/2016 & CO No.87/2017 (LAR 134/2011) LAA No.487/2015 & CO No.114/2016 (LAR 138/2011)** The State has filed appeals and the claimants have filed cross objections against the common judgment in all the 3 cases. It has come out in evidence through report of the Advocate Commissioner that the properties contains Cashew trees and is having direct frontage of mud road leading to the panchayat road. Hence we hold that the claimants are entitled for refixation of land value at the rate of Rs.25,963/- per cent. Hence the appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The cross objections are allowed in part to the above extent. It is noticed that the cross objectors/claimants have limited their claim for land value to Rs.20,000/- per cent. Hence the cross objectors/claimants will be entitled to the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent only. ## **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -36- ## (o) **LAA No.56/2014 (LAR No.132/2011) LAA No.30/2014 (LAR No.152/2011)** The above appeals are filed by the claimants against the judgment of the reference court. The State had not filed any appeal or cross objection in this case. Through evidence of report of the Advocate Commissioner it is proved before the court below that the property is having Cashew trees and direct frontage of mud road leading to the panchayat road. Hence it is held that the appellants are entitled for refixation of land value at the rate of Rs.25,963/-. Hence the appeals are allowed in part to the above extent. It is noticed that the appellants have limited their claim for land value at Rs.19,000/- per cent. Hence the appellants will be entitled for the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at the rate of 19,000/- per cent only. ## (p) **LAA No.78/2016 & CO No.45/2017 (LAR No.153/2011)** The above appeal is filed by the State and the cross objection is filed by the claimants. It has come out in evidence through report of the Advocate Commissioner that **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -37- the property is having direct frontage to the mud road leading to the panchayat road. Hence it is held that the cross objectors are entitled for refixation of land value at Rs.25,963/-. Hence the appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed. The cross objection is allowed in part to the above extent. It is noticed that the appellants have limited their claim for the land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent. Hence the cross objector/claimant will be entitled for the benefits only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent only. ## (q) **L.A.A.No.174/2016 & CO 104/2016 (LAR 83/2011) & LAA No.388/2017 & CO 10/2018 (LAR 149/2011)** The appeals are filed by the State and the cross objections are filed by the claimants, against the common judgment of the reference cases. From Ext.X1 report of the Advocate Commissioner it is evident that the properties covered under these judgments where having access to the mud road leading to the Panchayat road. Hence it is found that the cross objectors/claimants are entitled for refixation ## **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -38- of land value at Rs.25,963/- per cent. Therefore, the appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The cross objections are allowed to the above extent. It is noticed that the claimants have limited their claim for land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent. Hence the cross objectors/claimants will be entitled for the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.20,000/- per cent only. ## (r) **LAA 125/2014 (LAR 158/2011)** The claimants have filed the above appeal. The State had not filed any appeal or cross objection in this case. It is revealed from the evidence that the property acquired is not having any direct road access. Hence, it is held that the appellant/claimant is entitled for re-fixation of land value only at Rs.20,770/-. It is noticed that the claim of land value is limited in the appeal to the extent of Rs.10,000/- per cent. Hence, the appellant/claimant will be entitled to the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent only. **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -39- ## (s) **LAA 401/2015 (LAR 304/2011)** The appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation. There is no appeal or cross objection filed by the State. The report of the Advocate Commissioner which is marked in evidence would indicate that the property was having direct frontage of the mud road leading to the Panchayat Road. Hence the appellant is entitled for re-fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.25,963/- per cent. Hence the appeal is allowed to the above extent. It is noticed that the claim for land value is limited to Rs.20,000/- per cent. Hence, the appellant will be entitled to the benefit only on payment of the deficit of court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent only. ## (t) **LAA 127/2016 (LAR 310/2011), LAA 152/2016 (LAR 308/2011), LAA 121/2016 (LAR 309/2011), LAA 157/2016 (LAR 306/2011) & LAA 158/2016 (LAR 307/2011).** All the above appeals are filed by the State challenging the judgments of the reference court. There is no appeal or cross objection filed by the claimants. Hence, based on the -40- **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** above findings we are inclined to dismiss the appeals by confirming the judgment of the reference court. ## (u) **LAA 434/2014 & LAA 96/2015 (LAR 172/2011)** Both the appeals are filed by the claimants against the very same judgment of the reference court. It is proved in evidence through report of the Advocate Commissioner that the acquired property is having road frontage. Hence it is held that the appellants are entitled for re-fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.25,963/- per cent. Hence, both the appeals are allowed to that extent. It is noticed that the appellants have limited the claim for land value at Rs.18,000/- per cent. Hence, the appellants will be entitled to get the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per cent only. ## (v) **LAA 307/2014 (LAR 199/2011)** Claimant is in appeal against the judgment of the reference court. The report of the Advocate Commissioner marked in evidence would reveal that the property acquired **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -41- is not having direct access to any roads. Therefore it is held that the appellant is entitled for re-fixation of land value only at Rs.20,770/-. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. It is noticed that the claim for land value was limited in the appeal to Rs.17,000/-. Hence the appellant will be entitled to the benefit only on payment of deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per cent only. ## (w) **LAA 514/2015 & LAA 103/2016 (LAR 157/2011)** Both the State as well as the claimants are the appellants. It is proved in evidence through report of the Advocate Commissioner that the acquired property is having frontage to a mud road leading to the panchayat road. Hence the appellant/claimant is entitled for re-fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.25,963/- per cent. The appellant/claimant had raised another issue regarding denial of compensation with respect to an excess extent of land. Contention was that, the extent of the property actually acquired was 1.214 Hectares, whereas ## **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -42- land value was awarded only for 1.1736 Hectares. The reference court found that the Advocate Commissioner had measured the property with the help of the Village Officer. It was reported that the extent is only as contained in the land acquisition records. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is contended that the village officer has not deviated from the original plan prepared by the land acquisition authorities, and merely copied the said plan. It is pertinent to note that the claimant had not raised any objections regarding the extent of land during when the award enquiry was conducted or at the time when the compensation was received. He had not succeeded before the reference court in proving that the land acquired is more than 1.1736 Hectares. Therefore we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings rendered by the reference court with respect to the extent of the land. In the result, the appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed. The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent of re-fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.25,963/- per cent. It is noticed that the appellant had **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -43- limited the claim for land value at Rs.23,883/- per cent. Hence the appellant will be entitled to the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed to Rs.23,883/- per cent only. ## (x) **LAA 207/2013 (LAR 212/2011)** The above appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the reference court. There is no appeal or cross objection filed by the claimant. The value awarded by the reference court is Rs.22,000/- per cent. In view of the findings in this judgment, the value need to be reduced to Rs.20,770/- per cent, because the property is not having frontage to any road. Hence the appeal is allowed in part by reducing the land value to Rs.20,770/- per cent. ## (y) **LAA No. 361/2016 (LAR 87/2011)** The appellant is the claimant before the Reference Court. It is proved in evidence that the acquired property is having access to the mud road leading to the panchayat road. Hence it is held that the appellant is entitled for refixation of land value at the rate of Rs.25,963/-. Hence the ## **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -44- appeal is allowed to that extent. It is noticed that the appellant had limited the claim for land value to Rs.11,615/per cent. Hence the appellant will be entitled to the benefit only on payment of the deficit court fee, failing which the land value shall be computed at Rs.11,615/- per cent only. ## (z) **LAA No. 519/2015 (LAR 188/2011)** This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the reference court. There is no appeal or cross objection filed by the claimant. The value awarded by the reference court is Rs.23,000/- per cent. It is brought out in evidence that the acquired property is not having frontage to any road. Hence in view of this judgment, the value need to be reduced to Rs.20,770/- per cent. Hence the appeal is allowed in part by reducing the land value to Rs.20,770/per cent. 12. In all the above cases where appeals filed by the claimants are allowed in part, the appellants/claimants will be entitled to the statutory benefits based on the enhanced land value, as provided under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 **LAA No.11/2013 and connected cases** -45- of the Land Acquisition Act, along with proportionate costs. 13. The deficit court fee permitted to be remitted on the enhanced land value allowed should be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by each of the claimant. The Registry of this Court shall verify about payment of the additional court fee at the time of drafting the decree in each of the cases. All the appeals and cross objections are disposed of as above. Sd/- ## **C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE** . Sd/- **SHIRCY V., JUDGE** . ## **Ks/Scl/AMG/Scl** True copy P.A. to Judge