High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeals dismissed
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
Case / Petition Number:LA.App.238/2015; LA.App.249/2015; LA.App.279/2015; LA.App.286/2015; LA.App.288/2015; LA.App.293/2015; LA.App.320/2015; LA.App.380/2015
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. Chitambresh
- R. Narayana Pisharadi
- Judgment Date
- 2019-01-29
- Court Decision / Holding
- The appeals are dismissed; the common judgement awarding the compensation as fixed by the reference court is affirmed as just and reasonable. No costs.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- State of Kerala represented by Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition, Koyilandy
Respondents
- Kesavan s/o Kannankutty
- Jan, W/o Late Kesavan
- Omana, D/o Late Kesavan
- Usha, D/o Late Kesavan
- Praveen, S/o Late Kesavan
- Managing Director, Roads and Bridges Development Corporation (RBDC)
- Suresh Cheruvakkatt
- Mallika W/o Balakrishanan Nair
- Velayudhan S/o Theyyan Kattivayalil
- Athira, d/o Kannan (late) Pranavam
- Narayanan
- Sivasankaran
- Ashokan
- Jayarajan
- Kusumavathy
- Leela Keloth House
- Anil Kumar 'Aradhana'
- Unnikrishnan 'Ambadiyil'
- Mohandas 'Keerthanam'
- Managing Director, RBDC (again)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri A.K. Sukumaran (Sr. GP)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri Shyson P. Manguzha
- • Sri R. Parthasarathy
- • Smt. Seema
Case Synopsis & Summary
These eight Land Acquisition Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 20 December 2014 of the Sub Court, Koyilandy, in L.A.R. Nos. 4/2012, 5/2012, 6/2012, 9/2012, 11/2012, 16/2012, 18/2012 and 21/2012, concerning lands in Panthalayani Village acquired for construction of a railway overbridge at Koyilandy. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 30 July 2010. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs. 68,897 per cent; the Reference Court enhanced to Rs. 2,10,076 per cent and awarded Rs. 3,70,785 for injurious affection in L.A.R. 4/2012. The State challenged these awards in eight appeals, contending that the reference court relied on improper bases for market value (including post-notification data) and that pre-notification comparables should govern valuation, in light of Maya Devi v. State of Haryana. The claimants relied on Exts. A1–A5 and other evidence to justify higher compensation, arguing the lands’ proximity to a State Highway and civic amenities justify greater value and injurious affection. The High Court, after examining evidence and applying established principles (including allowance for reasonable guesswork in valuation), held that the reference court’s figure was just and reasonable given the lands’ location. The appeals were dismissed with no costs, upholding the award as fair.”
Provisions of Law Cited
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Some amount of reasonable guesswork is permissible in determining fair market value (Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2011 SC 2458)
- Post-notification transactions cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the market value (Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2018 SC 645)
- Obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State; courts may balance equities with a degree of estimation
- When determining market value, proximity to highways and the locality's commercial importance can justify higher compensation
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The State contends that the compensation fixed by the Reference Court is excessive. It argues that reliance on Ext.R2 (pre-notification sale) and other transactions should be minimized, particularly since post-notification transactions were relied upon by the Reference Court in some cases. Citing Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, the State asserts post-notification data cannot determine market value. It emphasizes the lands’ strategic location along a State Highway and in a commercially developed portion of Koyilandy, which warrants a value not exceeding the Reference Court’s award, and it contests the higher valuations suggested by the claimants’ evidence. The State also stresses the obligation on the State to pay fair compensation while balancing equities through reasoned estimation where hard comparables are lacking.
Contentions of Respondents
The claimants press for higher compensation based on evidence in Exts A1–A5 and the lands’ proximity to civic amenities (bus stand, railway station, hospital, court, banks) within 500 metres. They contend Ext.A2 post-notification transactions, though noted, reflect higher values due to special locality characteristics. They argue injurious affection and the remaining land’s shape and access issues justify enhanced compensation; they rely on the reference court’s approach and the principle that some estimation is permissible when reliable comparable data exists. Overall, they seek to maximize compensation while asserting the developed town’s advantages around Koyilandy.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maya Devi v. State of Haryana | AIR 2018 SC 645 | Positive | Post-notification transactions cannot be used to fix market value, which supports the Court’s reasoning to exclude such data in determining compensation. |
| Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal | AIR 2011 SC 2458 | Positive | Acknowledges that some degree of guesswork is permissible in calculating fair market value to balance equities. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI**
**TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940**
## **LA.App..No. 238 of 2015**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20-12-2014 IN LAR 16/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY**
## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.**
**BY SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN-SR.GP**
## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
- ***1 KESAVAN S/O.KANNANKUTTY, KUTTIVAYAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TALUK. DIED AND IMPLEADED**
- **2 MANAGING DIRECTOR RBDC (ROAD AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PALARIVATTAM, KOCHI**
- ***ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 IMPLEADED**
- **3 JANU, W/O.LATE KESAVAN, AGED 68 YEARS, KUTTIVAYAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TALUK 673 305.**
- **4 OMANA, D/O.LATE KESAVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KUTTIVAYAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TALUK 673 305.**
- **5 USHA, D/O.LATE KESAVAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KUTTIVAYAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TALUK 673 305.**
2
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
**6 PRAVEEN, S/O.LATE KESAVAN, AGED 43 YEARS, KUTTIVAYAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TALUK 673 305.**
**7 LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2016 IN I.A.NO.285/2016**
**BY ADVS. SMT.SEEMA FOR R3 TO R6 SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R3 TO R6**
SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA FOR R2
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..249/2015, LA.App..279/2015, LA.App..286/2015, LA.App..288/2015, LA.App..293/2015, LA.App..320/2015 AND LA.App..380/2015, THE COURT ON 29.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
3
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940**
## **LA.App..No. 249 of 2015**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20-12-2014 IN LAR 18/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY**
## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.**
**BY SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN-SR.GP**
## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
|**1**|**SURESH**|
|---|---|
||**CHERUVAKATT, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY-673 305.**|
|***2**|**USHA**|
||**CHERUVAKATT, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY-673 305.**|
||**(DIED AND LEGAL HEIR RECORDED)**|
||***R2 DIED AND R1 IS RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF**|
||**THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED**|
||**01.12.2016 IN I.A.NOS.1120 AND 1133 OF 2016)**|
4
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
**3 MANAGING DIRECTOR RBDC, (ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.**
**BY ADVS. SMT.SEEMA FOR R1 SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1** SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA FOR R2
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..238/2015, LA.App..279/2015, LA.App..286/2015, LA.App..288/2015, LA.App..293/2015, LA.App..320/2015 AND LA.App..380/2015, THE COURT ON 29.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
5
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI**
**TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940**
**LA.App..No. 279 of 2015**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20-12-2014 IN LAR 11/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY**
**APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY 673305**
**BY SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN-SR.GP**
## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**1 MALLIKA W/O BALAKRISHANAN NAIR, "ARCHANA", CHERIYAKANOTH KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TALUK,. 673 305 2 MANAGING DIRECTOR RBDC, (ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI- 682 025**
**SMT.SEEMA FOR R3 TO R6**
**SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R3 TO R6**
SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA FOR R2
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..238/2015, LA.App..249/2015, LA.App..286/2015, LA.App..288/2015, LA.App..293/2015, LA.App..320/2015 AND LA.App..380/2015, THE COURT ON 29.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
6
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI**
**TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940**
**LA.App..No. 286 of 2015**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20-12-2014 IN LAR 5/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY**
## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.673 307**
**BY SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN-SR.GP**
## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**1 VELAYUDHAN S/O.THEYYAN KATTIVAYALIL (H), KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY 673307 2 MANAGING DIRECTOR RBDC, (ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682025**
**BY ADVS. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 SMT.SEEMA FOR R1**
SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA FOR R2
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..238/2015, LA.App..279/2015, LA.App..249/2015, LA.App..288/2015, LA.App..293/2015, LA.App..320/2015 AND LA.App..380/2015, THE COURT ON 29.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
7
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940**
**LA.App..No. 288 of 2015**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20-12-2014 IN LAR 4/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY**
**APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.**
**BY SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN-SR.GP**
## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**1 ATHIRA, D/O.KANNAN (LATE) PRANAVAM, MOONAMTHODE, THAMARASSERY PO, KOZHIKODE TALUK673 573. 2 MANAGING DIRECTOR RBDC, (ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)PALARIVATTAM, KOCHI 682 025.**
**BY ADVS.**
**SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1**
**SMT.SEEMA FOR R1**
SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA FOR R2
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..238/2015, LA.App..279/2015, LA.App..286/2015, LA.App..249/2015, LA.App..293/2015, LA.App..320/2015 AND LA.App..380/2015, THE COURT ON 29.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
8
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940**
**LA.App..No. 293 of 2015**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20-12-2014 IN LAR 21/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY**
## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.**
**BY SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN-SR.GP**
## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
|**1**|**NARAYANAN**|
|---|---|
||**KELOTH HOUSE, KUNNATHARA (PO), KOYILANDY.**|
|**2**|**SIVASANKARAN**|
||**KELOTH HOUSE, KUNNATHARA (PO), KOYILANDY.**|
|**3**|**ASHOKAN**|
||**KELOTH HOUSE, KUNNATHARA (PO), KOYILANDY.**|
|**4**|**JAYARAJAN**|
||**KELOTH HOUSE, KUNNATHARA (PO), KOYILANDY.**|
|**5**|**KUSUMAVATHY**|
||**KELOTH HOUSE, KUNNATHARA (PO), KOYILANDY.**|
9
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
**6 LEELA KELOTH HOUSE, KUNNATHARA (PO), KOYILANDY.**
**7 MANAGING DIRECTOR RBDC (ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION),PALARIVATTAM, KOCHI.**
**BY ADVS.**
**SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 TO R6 SMT.SEEMA FOR R1 TO R6**
SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA FOR R7
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..238/2015, LA.App..279/2015, LA.App..286/2015, LA.App..288/2015, LA.App..249/2015, LA.App..320/2015 AND LA.App..380/2015, THE COURT ON 29.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
10
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI**
**TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940**
**LA.App..No. 320 of 2015**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20-12-2014 IN LAR 9/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY**
**APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.**
**BY SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN-SR.GP**
## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
- **1 ANILKUMAR "ARADHANA",KOTHAMANGALAM,KOYILANDY,KOYILANDY TALUK. 673 305**
- **2 UNNIKRISHNAN "AMBADIYIL",NADUVATHUR.P.O,KOYILANDY TALUK-673330.**
**3 MANAGING DIRECTOR RBDC,(ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION),PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI-682025.**
**SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 AND R2 SMT.SEEMA FOR R1 AND R2**
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..238/2015,LA.App..279/2015, LA.App..286/2015,LA.App..288/2015,LA.App..293/2015, LA.App. 249/205 AND LA.App..380/2015, THE COURT ON 29.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
11
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940**
**LA.App..No. 380 of 2015**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20-12-2014 IN LAR 6/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY**
**APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.**
**BY SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN-SR.GP**
## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:**
**1 MOHANDAS 'KEERTHANAM',CHERIYAKANDOTH, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY – 673 305. 2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, RBDC (ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. 682 025**
**BY ADVS. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 SMT.SEEMA FOR R1 SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA FOR R2**
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..249/2015, LA.App..279/2015, LA.App..286/2015, LA.App..288/2015, LA.App..293/2015, LA.App..320/2015 AND LA.App..238/2015, THE COURT ON 29.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
12
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
## **V.CHITAMBARESH &**
## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.**
**************************
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of January, 2019
## **JUDGMENT**
## **R.Narayana Pisharadi, J**
These appeals are filed challenging the common judgment dated 20.12.2014 passed by the Sub Court, Koyilandy in the cases L.A.R.Nos.4/2012, 5/2012, 6/2012, 9/2012, 11/2012, 16/2012, 18/2012 and 21/2012.
2. Lands owned by the party respondents in these appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'), situated in Panthalayani Village, were acquired for the purpose of
13
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
construction of railway overbridge at Koyilandy. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 30.07.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for land by fixing the value of the land at Rs.68,897/- per cent. The reference court enhanced the compensation by refixing the value of the land at Rs.2,10,076/per cent. In L.A.R.No.4/2012, the reference court also granted an amount of Rs.3,70,785/- as compensation for injurious affection. Aggrieved by the award passed by the reference court, the State has filed these appeals.
3. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and also the learned counsel for the requisitioning authority. We have also perused the records.
4. Ext.C1 is the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner after inspecting the lands acquired. Ext.C1 report shows that the lands acquired are situated 100-150 metres away from the new
14
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
bus stand in Koyilandy Town. Ext.C1 report also shows that the lands acquired are situated in a commercially important locality. The railway station, taluk hospital, post office, the court complex and several banks are located within a radius of 500 metres of the lands acquired.
5. The officer examined as RW1 on behalf of the State has stated that the lands acquired are situated abutting Thamarassery – Koyilandy State Highway.
6. The Land Acquisition Officer adopted the value shown in Ext.R2 document as the basis for fixation of the market value of the lands acquired. Ext.R2 document shows that on 07.06.2010,
4.10 Ares (10.127 cents) of land situated in Panthalayani Village was sold by its owner for a total consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-. The value of the land paid as per this document comes to Rs.69,122/- per cent.
7. The description of the property given in Ext.R2 document
shows that there is no public road on any side of it and the
15
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
access to that property is through the pathways lying on its eastern and northern sides. This property is located in a residential area.
8. There was absolutely no justification for the Land Acquisition Officer to adopt the value of the land shown in Ext.R2 document as the basis for determination of the market value of the lands acquired. The lands acquired are abutting a State Highway. On the other hand, the land covered by Ext.R2 document has no access from any public road and it is situated in a residential locality, having no commercial importance.
9. Exts.A1 to A5 are the documents produced by the claimants before the reference court in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation for land.
10. Ext.A1 is the copy of document No.1930/1997. As per this document, on 20.08.1997, 4.20 cents of property was sold for a total consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. Ext.C1 report shows that this property is situated at a distance of 300 metres from
16
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
Koyilandy Town and it has got no direct road access.
11. Ext.A2 is the copy of document No.1257/2012. As per this document, on 28.05.2012, 01.31 Ares (3.23 cents) of property was purchased by a Co-operative Society for a total consideration of Rs.6,88,000/-. Ext.C1 report shows that this property has got road access and that it is situated at a distance of 250 metres from the Koyilandy Town. The reference court has adopted the value of the land shown in Ext.A2 document, though it is a post notification transaction, as the basis for fixation of the market value of the acquired lands.
12. Ext.A3 is the copy of document No.2988/2010. As per this document, on 01.11.2010, one-third right of a person in a property, having an extent of 04.29 Ares, was sold for a total consideration of Rs.6,87,000/-.
13. Ext.A4 is the copy of document No.1010/2012. As per this document, on 16.04.2012, 21.49 Ares of property was sold for a total consideration of one crore and six lakhs and twenty
17
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
five thousand rupees. Ext.C1 report shows that this property is situated at a distance of 800 metres from Koyilandy Town and it is situated on the side of National Highway.
14. Ext.A5 is the copy of document No.611/2004. As per this document, on 08.03.2004, 25 cents of property was sold for a total consideration of Rs.35,90,000/-. This property consisted of the foundation and the pillars constructed for a shop room. The boundaries of the property shown in Ext.A5 document show that it has no direct road access.
15. In **Maya Devi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2018 SC 645),** the Apex Court has categorically held that post notification transactions cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the land acquired for granting compensation. Therefore, the value of the land shown in Exts.A2 to A4 documents, being post notification transactions, cannot be adopted as the basis for fixation of the market value of the acquired lands. The reference court has relied upon the value of
18
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
the land shown in Ext.A2 document as the basis for fixation of the market value of the lands acquired. The procedure adopted by the reference court appears to be not proper.
16. The value of the land shown in Exts.A1 and A5 documents also cannot be adopted as the basis for fixation of the market value of the lands acquired. In the property covered by Ext.A5 document, there was the foundation and the pillars constructed for a shop room. This property had no road access. The transaction as per Ext.A1 document had taken place 13 years prior to the date of notification of acquisition. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to adopt the value of the land shown in Exts.A1 and A5 documents as the basis for fixation of the market value of the lands acquired.
17. The claimants are expected to lead cogent and proper evidence in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. The burden is on the claimants to establish that the amount awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer is
19
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
inadequate and that they are entitled to more amount. But, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State in such reference proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the fact that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State. In the absence of any reliable documents to prove the market value of similar and similarly situated properties, the value of the lands acquired can be fixed on the basis of some guess work only. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the court may have to take recourse to some guesswork while determining the fair market value of the land. The Court is entitled to apply some amount of reasonable guesswork to balance the equities and fix a just and fair market value (See **Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal : AIR 2011 SC 2458** ). An exercise of computation of the amount of compensation necessarily involves some amount of approximation and guesswork.
18. In the instant case, it is proved that the property covered by Ext.R2 document, which had not even access from a
20
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
public road and which is located in a residential area, had the market value of Rs. Rs.69,122/- per cent, just a month before the date of publication of the notification of acquisition. The lands acquired are situated abutting a State Highway. They are not situated far away from the National Highway. They are situated in Koyilandy Town, a commercially important locality. The value of the land fixed by the reference court comes to about three times higher than the value of the land shown in Ext.R2 document. Considering the commercial importance of the locality in which the lands acquired are situated, we are of the considered view that the value of the land fixed by the reference court, though on a different basis, is proper and that the compensation for land awarded is just and reasonable and not excessive. It is a case of acquisition of land which is situated in a reasonably good location surrounded by developed areas having civic amenities and facilities. When the market value of the lands acquired is determined taking into consideration their
21
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
geographical situation and proximity to the State Highway and National Highway, the compensation granted by the reference court does not warrant interference in appeal.
19. As per the common judgment in the appeals L.A.A.Nos.257 of 2015, 273 of 2015, 323 of 2015, 324 of 2015 and 344 of 2015, we have today found that the value of the land fixed by the reference court at Rs.2,12,860/- per cent is just and reasonable. The aforesaid appeals also relate to acquisition of land in the same village, under the same notification, for construction of railway overbridge at Koyilandy. The properties acquired in those cases were situated in the heart of Koyilandy Town. The properties acquired in the instant cases are also situated in Koyilandy Town, but in an area which has got lesser commercial importance. In such circumstances, the value of the land being fixed at a slightly lower rate, that is, at Rs.2,10,076/per cent, would be justified.
20. In L.A.R.No.4/2012, the reference court has granted an
22
L.A.A.Nos.238 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 279 of 2015, 286 of 2015, 288 of 2015, 293 of 2015, 320 of 2015 and 380 of 2015
amount of Rs.3,20,785/- as compensation for injurious affection. Ext.C1 report of the Advocate Commissioner shows that the remaining property, after acquisition, happened to be on either side of the road and the two portions of the remaining property are in triangular shape. Considering this aspect, it cannot be found that the amount of compensation granted by the reference court for injurious affection is excessive.
21. The discussion above would show that there is no merit in the appeals and they are liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.
(sd/-)
## **V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE**
(sd/-)
## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE**
jsr/29/01/2019
True Copy
PS to Judge