L.A.A.No.71/2015 & connected cases

``` 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 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2018/ 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 ``` ## `LA.App..No.71 of 2015` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 71/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 26-08-2014 ``` ``` APPELLANT/1STRESPONDENTINLAR: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR :` **1** `GEORGE C.I. : S/O.LATE IYPE KUZHIYANJAL, CHAKKALAMOOLAYIL, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., 682 303(DIED)` 2 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases - **2** `THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INFO PARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD – 682030.` ## `ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 :` - `R3. SMT.AMMINI GEORGE CHAKALAMOOLAYIL (H) PATHAM MILE, AIKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, VADAYAMPADY P.O., PIN 682 308.` ``` R4SRI.SUMESH GEORGECHAKALAMOOLAYIL (H) PATHAM MILE, AIKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE VADAYAMPADY P.O., PIN 682 308. ``` - `R5 SRI.GINESH GEORGE CHAKALAMOOLAYIL (H), PATHAM MILE AIKARANADU SOUTH` - `VILLAGE VADAYAMPADY P.O., PIN 682308` ``` R1 DIED AND LEGAL HEIRS OF R1 IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 TO R5 VIDE ORDER DATED16.2.2018 IN I.A.NO.848/2017 ``` ``` R3 TO R5 BY ADVS..VARGHESE K.PAUL-R3 TO R5 SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SC FOR R2 ``` ``` THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2018, ALONG WITH CO.28/2018, and LA.App..89/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2018/ 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 ``` ``` CO.No.28of2018INLA.App..71/2015 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.8.2014 IN LAR NO.71/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## `1ST RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT :` ``` 1GEORGE C.I. S/O.LATE IPE (DIED) KUZHIYANJAL HOUSE CHACKALAMOOLAYIL BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PIN 682 303. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (DIED) ``` ## `CROSS OBJECTORS/LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 :` ``` 1AMMINI W/O LATE C.I GEORGE, CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE,BRAHMAPURAM P.O. PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 682 303 NOW RESIDING AT CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, P.P.ROAD,PATHAM MILE, VADYAMPADY P.O. ``` 3 `SUMESH GEORGE S/O.LATE C.I GEORGE BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN 682 303 NOW RESIDING AT CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, CHOONDY, RAMAMANGALAM ROAD, VADYAMPADY P.O.` 4 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases 4 `GINESH GEORGE S/O C.I.GEORGE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 682 303 NOW RESIDING AT CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, P.P.ROAD, PATHAM MILE, VADYAMPADY P.O.` ``` BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL ``` ``` RESPONDENT/APPELLANT& 2NDRESPONDENT: ``` - **1** `STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM` **2** `THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INFO PARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 030` ``` BY ADVS. SPECIAL GP SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN-R1 SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SC FOR R2 ``` ``` THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App..71/2015, LA.App..89/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 5 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases ``` 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 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2018/ 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 ``` ``` CO.No.22of2018INLA.App..89/2015 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.8.2014 IN LAR NO.72/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## `1ST RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT` ``` 1GEORGE C.I S/O.LATE IPE(DIED),KUZHIYANJAL HOUSE, CHACKALAMOOLAYIL,BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PIN - 682 303,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (DIED) ``` ``` CROSSOBJECTORS/LEGALHEIRSOFTHE1STRESPONDENT/ ADDITIONALRESPONDENTS3 TO5 ``` 2 `AMMINI, W/O.LATE C.I.GEORGE CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 682 303 NOW RESIDING AT CHACKALAMOOLAYIL` ``` HOUSE, P.P ROAD, PATHAM MIL, VADYAMPADY P.O ``` 6 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases `3. SUMESH GEORGE, S/O.LATE C.I.GEORGE BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT` ``` PIN 682 303, NOW RESIDING AT ``` ``` CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, CHOONDY, ``` ``` RAMAMANGALAM ROAD, VADYAMPADI.P.O. ``` `4. GINESH GEORGE, S/O.C,I,GEORGE,` ``` CHAKKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 682 303 NOW RESIDING AT CHACKALAMOOLAYIL ``` ``` HOUSE, P.P.ROAD, PATHAM MIL, VADYAMPADI P.O. ``` ``` BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL ``` ## `RESPONDENT/APPELLANT & 2ND RESPONDENT :` ## `4. STATE OF KERALA` ``` REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. ``` `5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER` ``` INFO PARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030. ``` ## `BY` ``` SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM (SC- R2) ``` ``` THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2018, ALONG WITH LAA 89/2015 AND LA.App.71/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 7 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases ``` 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 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2018/ 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 ``` ``` LA.App..No.89of2015 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.8.2014 IN LAR 72/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## `APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR:` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY ``` ``` SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR :` ``` 1GEORGE.C.I. S/O.LATE IYPE KUZHIYANJAL, CHAKKALAMOOLAYIL, BRAHMAPURAM P.O. - 682 303. ``` ``` (DIED AND LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED) ``` 8 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases 2 `THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INFO PARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD - 682 042. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 : ADDL.R3 SMT.AMMINI W/O.LATE GEORGE.C.I. CHAKALAMOOLAYIL (H) P.P.ROAD, PATHAM MILE, VADYAMPADY.P.O.,PIN 682308` ``` ADDL.R4 SRI.GINESH GEORGE S/O.LATE GEORGE.C.I. CHAKALAMOOLAYIL (H), P.P.ROAD, PATHAM MILE VADAYAMPADY P.O., PIN 682 308. ADDL.R5. SRI.SUMESH GEORGE S/O.LATE GEORGE C.I. CHAKALAYIL (H) CHOONDY, RAMAMANGALAM ROAD VADAYAMPADI P.O., PIN 682 308. ``` ``` R1 DIED AND LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R1 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.8.2017 IN I.A.NO.726/17 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL-R3 TO R5 SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SC FOR R2 ``` ``` THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2018, ALONG WITH CO.22/2018 AND LA.App.71/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 9 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases ``` 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 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2018/ 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 CO.No.42of2018INLA.App..109/2015 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.8.2014 IN LAR NO.73/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## `1ST RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT :` ``` 1GEORGE C.I. S/O.LATE IPE (DIED) KUZHIYANJAL HOUSE CHACKALAMOOLAYIL BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PIN 682 303. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (DIED) ``` ``` CROSSOBJECTORS/LEGALHEIRSOFTHE1ST RESPONDENT/ADDITIONALRESPONDENTS3 TO5 : ``` ``` 1AMMINI W/O.LATE C.I.GEORGE, CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682303, NOW RESIDING AT CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, P.P.ROAD, PATHAM MILE, VADYAMPADY P.O. ``` 10 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases 2 `SUMESH GEORGE S/O.LATE C.I.GEORGE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682303, NOW RESIDING AT CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, CHOONDY, RAMAMANGALAM ROAD VADYAMPADY P.O.` - 3 `GINESH GEORGE S/O.C.I.GEORGE, CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682303,NOW RESIDING AT CHACKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, P.P.ROAD,PATHAM MILE, VADYAMPADY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL` ## `RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/2ND & 6TH RESPONDENTS:` 1 `THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM682030.` - 2 `THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFO PARK KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT682030.` - 3 `ALEYKUTTY IPE @ALEYAMMA D/O.LATE IPE, CHAKKALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PIN-682303.` ``` SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SC FOR R2 SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN-R3 ``` ``` SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN- R1 ``` ``` THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App..109/2015 AND LA.App..71/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 11 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases # `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 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2018/ 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 ``` ``` LA.App..No.109of2015 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.8.2014 IN LAR 73/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## `APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR:` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM ``` ``` BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR:` 1 `GEORGE C.I. S/O.LATE IYPE KUZHIYANJAL, CHAKKALAMOOLAYIL, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., 682303 (DIED AND LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED)` 2 `THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INFO PARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD 682042` ``` ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ``` ``` 3SMT.AMMINI W/O.LATE GEORGE.C.I. CHAKALAMOOLAYIL (H) P.P.ROAD, PATHAM MILE, VADYAMPADY.P.O.,PIN 682308 ``` LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases 12 `4. SRI.GINESH GEORGE` ``` CHAKALAMOOLAYIL (H), P.P.ROAD, PATHAM MILE VADAYAMPADY P.O., PIN 682 308. ``` `5. ALEYAMMA IYPE (SISTER) CHACKALAMOOLAYIL (H) P.P.ROAD, PATHAM MILE, VADAYAMPADY P.O. PIN 682 308.` `6. SRI.SUMESH GEORGE CHAKALAMOOLAYIL (H) CHOONDY, RAMAMANGALAM ROAD VADAYAMPADI P.O., PIN 682 308.` ``` R1 DIED AND LEGAL HEIRS ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 TO R6 VIDE ORDER DATED 16.10.2017 IN I.A.NO.856/17 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL-R3 TO R6 SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SC-R2 ``` ``` THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ``` ``` 05.03.2018, ALONG WITH C.O.42/2018 AND L.A.A NOS.71/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 13 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases ## C.K. ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY V., JJ. ===================== L.A.A.No. 71 of 2015 & C.O. No. 28/2018, L.A.A.No.89/2015 & C.O. No. 22/2018 & ## L.A.A.No.109/2015 & C.O.No.42/2018 ======================= ## **JUDGMENT** ## **C.K. Abdul Rehim J.** All the three land acquisition appeals as well as the cross objections arise out of a common judgment of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor in L.A.R.Nos.71/11, 72/2011 and 73/2011, dated 26.8.2014. The acquisition in question was for 'IInd Phase Development' of INFOPARK, Kakkanad”. The date of publication of the Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was on 20.9.2007. With respect to the same acquisition, this court had decided a batch of cases through the judgment in L.A.A.No.73/2014 and connected cases, on 27.2.2018. Through the said judgment this court had re-categorised the properties involved in the acquisition into four basic categories with sub classifications in each LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases 14 categories based on accessibility to tar road, mud road etc. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants, the Standing Counsel appearing for the requisitioning authority and counsel appearing for the cross objectors/claimants have conceded that the properties covered under the said common judgment were also acquired through the very same notification issued under section 4(1). It is also conceded that the acquired land in these cases are situated in similar nature with that of the properties covered under the above said common judgment. Therefore the categorisation of the properties in these cases can be decided on the basis of the findings contained in the above said judgment. This court had already re-fixed the land value with respect to all the categories by giving enhancement from the land value fixed by the reference court. It is conceded by learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants that no better exemplar than what was considered in the said judgment is available. Therefore it is conceded that the land value of the acquired properties in these cases can be fixed based on the common judgment of this court referred above. LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases 15 2 Now we will consider the disputes with respect to categorisation of the properties and with respect to the extent of land in each of the cases, and shall proceed to fix the land value in accordance with the findings, relying on the judgment dated 27.2.2018 in L.A.A.No.73/2014 and connected cases. 3 The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) had included the properties covered under L.A.R.Nos.71/2011 and 72/2011 in the 1[st] category which is described as dry land having access to tar road and fixed the land value at Rs.3,21,569/- per Are. The reference court had allowed enhancement and refixed the land value at Rs.4,84,482/-per Are. In the judgment of this court dated 27.2.2018 in L.A.A.No.73/2014 and connected cases, this court had included the property remained as dry land with access to tar road in category No. I(a) and refixed the land value at Rs.6,56,263/- per Are. Since classification of the acquired properties in these two cases is as dry land having access to tar road, we are of the opinion that the land value fixed by this court for category No.I(a) can be awarded in these cases. Therefore, it is held that the appeals filed by the State, L.A.A.Nos.71/2015 and 16 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases 89/2015 are liable to be dismissed. The cross objections, C.O.Nos.28/18 and 22/2018 are liable to be allowed to the extent as mentioned above. Hence those cross objections are allowed to the extent of refixing the land value of the acquired properties at the rate of Rs.6,56,263/- per Are. 4 With respect to L.A.R.No.73/2011, from which L.A.A.No.109/2015 and C.O.No.42/2018 arose, there exists a dispute with respect to the extent of the land acquired, as well as with respect to the categorisation. The LAO had included the property in category No.14, which is described as paddy field having access to any road. The claimants have challenged the categorisation before the reference court on two grounds. First contention was that the property is not a paddy field and is lying as high level wet land. The second contention was that the property in question was having access to tar road. In Ext.A19 mahazar prepared by the LAO it is stated that, in the property, though lying as a 17 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases paddy field, there are certain coconut trees planted on the ridges. Ext.C1 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner wherein it was noticed that there are about 40 Coconut trees, 10 Areca nut trees, 8 Konna, 10 Vatta etc. standing in the property covered under LAR No.73/2011. It is stated that some of the trees are standing on the bund constructed on the boundaries of the property. It is also mentioned that the trees standing in the properties are having more than 30 to 40 years of age. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the property is not a pucca wet land and is remaining at a higher level than that of the normal wet land and the property is remaining as water logged at the time of inspection. It is pertinent to note that the Notification under section 4(1) was published on 20.9.2007, whereas the Advocate Commissioner had inspected the properties only on 15.3.2013, after about six years. Therefore the description regarding the nature of property mentioned in 18 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases the report of the Advocate Commissioner cannot be relied upon for the purpose of deciding the lie and nature of the land in question prevailed at the time of the acquisition. However, as revealed from the mahazar prepared by the LAO, even at the time of acquisition there were Coconut trees and other trees planted on the ridges (bunds) in the property. Therefore we are of the opinion that the property can be included in the basic category of wet land with coconut trees planted on ridges/bunds. 5 The next question is as to whether the acquired property is having access to tar road. In Ext.A19 it is mentioned that the property is situated facing a mud road connecting the Brahmapuram-Kakkanad public road. It is pointed out by the cross objector/claimant that the mud road mentioned in the mahazar is situated on the southern side of the acquired property. But at the same time it is contended that the acquired property is remaining as 19 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases contiguous plot with the properties belonging to the very same claimant, which were the acquired properties in L.A.R.Nos. 71/2011 and 72/2011. It is pointed out that the properties covered under LAR Nos.71/2011 and 72/2011 are having frontage to a tar road. Hence it is contended that the property under L.A.R.No.73/2011 also need to be categorised as property having access to the tar road. The reference court observed that, the property under L.A.R. Nos.71/2011, 72/2011 are admittedly garden land having direct access to tar road, but the property involved in LAR No.73/2011 is of a totally different nature and the same is an extensive wet land having an extent around 9.5 acres. The reference court took note of the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents that, the outer boundary of the property in LAR No.73/2011 is lying far away from the tar road, which is abutting on the other side of the properties covered in LAR Nos.71/2011 and 72/2011. The finding of 20 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases the reference court was that, considering the lie and nature and extensive area of the land involved, the direct tar road frontage available to the other properties, which are in different nature, cannot be considered as a benefit or advantage available to the acquired property involved in the present case. Learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants raised vehement contentions against the said finding, by pointing out that the properties covered under all the three LARs are situated as a compact plot in the ownership of one claimant. Those properties happened to be involved in different LARs only because they were included in different Awards passed by the LAO, based on clubbing together of properties comprised in same survey numbers in each of the Awards. It is pointed out that, it is by way of an irregular and improper method that the LAO had included properties belonging to the same claimant in different awards, based on the difference in survey 21 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases numbers. According to learned counsel, if the LAO had included the properties belonging to each of the claimants in single award, the entire properties of the claimant ought to have been considered as a compact plot. It is only because of the irregular method adopted that the differentiation in category had occurred, is the contention. 6 Ext.R1(b)(iv) is the mahazar prepared in LAR No.71/2011. The acquired property is comprised in survey No.102/4 having an extent of 0.3112 hectares. Likewise, Ext.R1(d) is the mahazar prepared in LAR No.72/2011. The acquired property is comprised in survey No.102/5 having an extent of 0.8798 hectares. From the boundary description contained in the sketch prepared with respect to both the cases, it is evident that the property in both the cases are lying as a compact plot. It is specifically mentioned in both these mahazars that the properties are situated facing the tar road lying in front of the muslim 22 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases mosque situated near to Brahmapuram bridge. From the description contained in the mahazar of the property under LAR No.73/2011 in Ext.R1(c)(iv), it is evident that the property is comprised in survey No.86/1 having an extent of 3.7598 hectares. The boundary description revealed from the sketch in Ext.R1(d) and Ext.R1(c)(iv) would reveal that the property in LAR No.73/2011 is lying on the northern side of the property in LAR No.72/2011, sharing a common boundary line marked in the sketch. Therefore it is clear and evident that the properties in all the three LARs are remaining as a compact plot. In the sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner, which is marked as Ext.C1(a), it is clearly indicated that the properties under all these three LARs are remaining as a compact plot, which is having frontage to a tarred Panchayath road on the southern side, which is leading to the Panchayath road on its northern side. Based on the above facts, the question to be decided is as 23 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases to whether the property under LAR No.73/2001 can claim the advantage of the tar road situated on the southern side. We are of the considered opinion that, since the properties in all these three cases belong to the same claimant and are lying as a compact plot, the frontage of the tar road on the one side will be advantageous of the entire extent of land and the property within the entire extent can claim the advantage of having accessibility to the tar road. 7 Another challenge raised against the judgment in L.A.R.No.73/2011 is with respect to the dispute relating to the extent of the property acquired. According to the cross objectors/claimants, he is the owner in possession of a total extent of 3.8160 Hectares, which is the extent of the property mentioned in the Notification published under section 4(1) of the Act. But the Award was passed only with respect to an extent of 3.7598 Hectares. Contention of the claimant is that he is entitled for compensation with respect 24 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases to the entire extent. Before the reference court it was pointed out that, Exts.A15 and A16 publications of section 4(1) notification revealed that the extent is 3.8160 Hectares. The claimant had produced Exts.A2 to A13 documents, which are the copies of Thandaper extract, Basic Tax Register, Possession Certificate, Survey Sketch, Field Sketch, Area Register and Land Tax Receipt etc. All those documents revealed that the extent mentioned is 3.8160 Hectares. In Ext.A17 notice issued under Rule 7(2) of the Land Acquisition Rules also the extent is mentioned as 3.8160 Hectares. Therefore it was contended that, the reduction of extent made by the LAO cannot be justified. The reference court noticed that in Ext.A18, which is the copy of the draft declaration published under Section 6, the extent is mentioned only as 0.7941 Hectares, which was specifically corrected as 3.7941 Hectares. In Ext.A19 mahazar it is specifically mentioned that the total extent 25 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases comprised in re-survey No.86/1 is 3.8160 Hectares; but the property under acquisition is having only an extent of 3.7941 Hectares. The reference court had taken note of Ext.R2(b), which is an erratum notification published on 1.12.2009, wherein it is mentioned that the actual extent of the land in re-survey No. 86/1 is only 3.759 Hectares. Ext.R2(c) is the copy of the relinquishment letter signed by the claimant in which it is revealed that he had relinquished some extent of land from R.S.No.86 for the purpose of creation of the adjacent road. The respondents contended that the remaining extent after relinquishment of the land is only 3.7598 Hectares and that the compensation was awarded only for such extent. The reference court observed that the claimant has not taken any steps to prove that the actual extent acquired was 3.8160 Hectares. It is noticed that the claimant has not taken out a commission for measurement of the property. Therefore the claim raised in 26 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases this regard was discarded. On a perusal of Ext.R1(c)(iv) Mahazar prepared in LAR No.73/201l, it is evident that the LAO had categorically mentioned that the extent of the land comprised in Sy.No.86/1 is 3.8160 Hectares, as per the revenue records. But it is mentioned that as per the approved Survey Records the extent of the land is only 3.7598 Hectares, after deducting the land relinquished for construction of the road. It is true that in the draft publication of Section 6 declaration, Ext.A18, the extent of land proposed to be acquired was shown as 3.7941 Hectares. But Ext.R2(b) is the copy of the erratum notification published on 4.12.2009. In the said notification it is specifically stated that, correction was made to the Section 6 declaration describing the extent of the property comprised in Sy.No.86/1 as 3.7598 Hectares, instead of the original extent shown as 3.7941. In the explanation attached to the said notification it is mentioned that the 27 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases properties under the acquisition in question was remaining as water logged contaminated with industrial effluents discharged from FACT Cochin Division and other industries and the area in question is remaining as uncultivated paddy field. Therefore, initially it was not practically possible to fix and demarcate the mud road situated in the property. The nature and existence of the land in question had created practical difficulties for conducting specific survey and demarcation. But on the basis of the objections raised by the claimants at the time of the award enquiry, strict scrutiny of the land and survey was conducted and the position of the road was fixed and demarcated during such survey. It is stated that the survey records so prepared was forwarded to the District Survey Superintendent for scrutiny and acceptance. The approved plan received from the District Superintendent of Survey was considered and an erratum notification with respect to correction of the extent 28 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases became necessitated under such circumstances. This court is of the considered opinion that the erratum notification published after approval of the survey records prepared for the purpose of the land acquisition need to be accepted as a valid document. Learned counsel for the Cross Objector/claimant had raised contention that, such correction was effected without proper notice to the to claimant and without affording him any opportunity object. But the claimant had not produced anything to substantiate that he had raised any dispute with respect to the extent at any point of time before passing of the award. Further, it is to be noted that, as observed by the reference court, the claimant had failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate that the actual extent of the property acquired from his possession is not the extent as contained in the award. 8 The learned counsel had raised a further contention 29 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases that, even assuming that the difference in the extent is the land relinquished for the purpose of creating the pathway, the claimant is having title over such extent of land and therefore, he is entitled for compensation at a reduced rate. In this regard he had placed reliance on a decision of this court in _**Biju. P. Mathai v. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KLT 970]**_ . In the said decision it is held that, the claimant in the said cases would be entitled for a reduced compensation at the rate of 1/4[th] of the rate fixed for the remaining properties with respect to the pathway upon which the claimant is holding proprietory title. But on the facts of the case at hand, we cannot hold that the reduced extent is actually the land relinquished for the pathway. Further we noticed from the Mahazar as well as from the Commission report that, the pathway in question is a Panchayath road. It has to be presumed that, even if the claimant holds proprietary title with respect to that extent of 30 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases land relinquished for the construction of the road, when the Panchayath had developed the road and used it for public purpose, the extent of the land covered under the road vests with the Panchayath, in accordance with provisions contained in the Panchayath Raj Act. Hence, the claimant cannot even raise a question of proprietary title with respect to such extent of land. Hence we are not inclined to award any compensation with respect to the extent of land which is pointed out as the difference between the extent noted in the revenue records and in the award passed by the LAO. 9 In the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in **The Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittur v. L.Kamalamma(Smt) dead by LRs, and Others [ (1998) 2 SCC 385]** it is held that, when the land acquired is having potentiality of being developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road higher rate of compensation should be paid, while 31 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be paid at a lower rate, may not stand to reason, because when the sites are formed those abutting the main road might have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Such classification of the land in different categories does not stand to reason when the entire land was acquired in one block, is the finding. Based on the fact situation described as above, this court has no hesitation to hold that, the entire property belonging to the claimants covered under the three cases situated as a compact plot and despite of the vast extent the property in all the three cases need to be categorised as having access to the tar road situated on its southern side. Therefore we are of the opinion that the property in LAR No.73/2011 need to be categorised under Group III(a), which is described as “wet land having coconut trees planted on chira (bund)” with access to tar road. Therefore we hold that the cross objectors/claimants in LAR No.73/2011 is 32 LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases entitled for refixation of land value at the rate of Rs.4,54,336/- per Are, which is the land value fixed with respect to category No.III(a) in the common judgment of this court in L.A.A.No.73/2014 and connected cases, dated 27.2.2018. 10 In the result, the above cases are disposed of as follows: (1)L.A.A. No.71/2015, 89/2015 and 109/2015 are hereby dismissed. 2 C.O.No.28/2018 and 22/2018 are allowed in part by refixing the land value at Rs.6,56,263/-per Are. 3 C.O. No. 42/2018 is allowed in part by refixing the land value at the rate of Rs.4,54,336/- per Are. 4 The cross objectors/claimants in all these cases will be entitled for statutory benefits provided under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5 The cross objectors/claimants will also be entitled LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases for proportionate costs. 11 It is made clear that the cross objectors/claimants will be permitted to remit the deficit court fee if any in tune with the compensation awarded as above within a period of three weeks, in view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chandrasekhar & Others v. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer [ (2009) 14 SCC 441],** failing which the cross objectors/claimants will be entitled for enhancement of the compensation only to the extent which they have claimed in the respective memorandum of cross objections. Sd/- ## **C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE** Sd/- **ks/smm.** ## **SHIRCY V., JUDGE** LAA 71/2015 & conn.cases The common judgment dated 05.03.2018 in LAA No.71/2015 & C.O. No.28/2018 and connected cases is corrected as follows, as per the common order dated 16.12.2022 in LAA Nos.71, 89 and 109 of 2015 and Cross Objection Nos.22, 28 and 42 of 2018. a. In the 10[th] line of 3[rd] paragraph at page No.4 of the judgment, Rs.6,56,263/- per Are is corrected as Rs.7,06,745/- per Are. b. In the last line of 3[rd] paragraph at page No.4, of the judgment Rs.6,56,263/- per Are is corrected as Rs.7,06,745/- per Are. c. In the 26[th] line of 9[th] paragraph at page No.20, of the judgment Rs.4,54,336/- per Are is corrected as Rs.5,04,818/- per Are. d. In the operative portion, 2[nd] line of paragraph 10(2) at page No.21, of the judgment, Rs.6,56,263/- per Are is corrected as Rs.7,06,745/- per Are and also in 2[nd] line of paragraph 10(3), Rs.4,54,336/- per Are is corrected as Rs.5,04,818/- per Are. Sd/- Joint Registrar