High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2014-12-18Appeals allowed in part; land values enhanced f...

L.A.App. No. 28 of 2013

Case / Petition Number:LA.App. No. 28 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T. R. Ramachandran Nair
P. V. Asha
Judgment Date: 2014-12-18
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed in part. For L.A.A. No. 849/12 and L.A.A. No. 850/12, land values are refixed at Rs. 27,775 per are (Category II) and silica sand value enhanced to Rs. 90 per cubic metre. For L.A.A. Nos. 25/13, 30/13 and 28/13, land value remains at Rs. 20,000 per are and appeals are dismissed in that regard. L.A.A. No. 283/13 (State’s appeal) is dismissed. The decree and judgment of the trial court are modified accordingly; parties will bear their own costs.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed in part; land values enhanced for some lands and silica sand value increased; decrees modified; costs to be borne by parties.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Achamma Joseph Kallarackal Kadavil

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Special Tahsildar (LA) Industrial Growth Centre, Cherthala, Alappuzha District-688 001
The Managing Director KSIDC, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Jobi Jose Kondody

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Jobby Cyriac (SC, KSIDC)
• Sri. R. Padmaraj (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of land acquisition appeals arises from the claimants’ challenge to the award determining land value for properties acquired for the Industrial Growth Centre at Pallipuram, Cherthala. The court consolidated L.A.A Nos. 28/13, 25/13, 30/13, and 849/12, 850/12, 283/13, hearing them together due to common questions of law and fact. The core dispute concerns the categorisation of the acquired lands and the corresponding market values, particularly whether certain dry lands should be treated as Category II (dry land with main road frontage or near-road properties) or Category III (interior lands, farther from the road). The appellants argued for higher valuations, contending a lack of rational basis for differentiating interior and road-adjacent lands, and cited several precedents to support higher rates, including Rs.27,775 per are for Category II land and higher rates in earlier decisions. The respondents contended that Category II eligibility required proximity and road frontage, while Category III lands near the main road but without frontage may not command higher values. The court examined distances from the Cherthala-Arookutty road (40 m, 100 m, 200 m) and relied on Commissioner reports and earlier Judgments (LAR Nos. 67/02, 99/02, 178/05, 157/05, and 116/02) to determine the appropriate values. The final orders enhanced silica sand value and adjusted land values: Rs 27,775 per are for L.A.A.849/12 and L.A.A.850/12; Rs 20,000 per are for L.A.A.25/13, 30/13, 28/13; L.A.A.283/13 dismissed; decree modified; costs allocated.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The claimants contended that the acquired lands could not be consigned to the lowest-value category and urged that properties near the main Cherthala-Arookutty road with limited road frontage be valued at Category II rates, arguing a lack of scientific basis for treating interior dry land differently and seeking higher compensation based on established precedents.

Contentions of Respondents

The requisitioning authority and State argued that categorisation into Category II/III depended on road frontage and distance from the main road. They contended that several properties were farther from the road (category III) and that the evidence did not prove that these lands should be treated like Category II properties; they also contested the quantum of silica sand value but accepted the need for some enhancement.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
The Managing Director, K.S.I.D.C. Trivandrum v. Janakiamma Panjakiamma & Others	2007 (3) KLJ 594	Positive	Cited as precedent supporting land values; the court relied on this decision to guide enhanced compensation (example Rs. 29,982) in earlier contexts and to assess Category II valuation.
L.A.R. No. 67/02	—	Positive	Judgment guiding Category II valuation at Rs. 27,775 per are; adopted as a controlling reference for certain lands.
L.A.R. No. 99/02	—	Positive	Referenced to support evaluation of categorisation and land value following established precedents.
L.A.R. No. 178/05	—	Positive	Connected with L.A.A. No. 850/12; used to justify proximity-based categorisation and valuation.
L.A.R. No. 157/05	—	Positive	Associated with L.A.A. No. 849/12; used to determine land value and categorisation context.
L.A.R. No. 116/02	—	Positive	Precedent arising in earlier judgment cited in context of land value adjustments (29,982).

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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.App. No. 28 of 2013 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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936** **LA.App..No. 28 of 2013 () --------------------------** **AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN LAR 209/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 31.7.2012** **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT :** **--------------------** **ACHAMMA JOSEPH KALLARACKAL KADAVIL, RESIDING AT FIELD VILLA PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOSE GEORGE.** **BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY** **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :** **-------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 001.** **2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SIR.R.PADMARAJ** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-12-2014, ALONG WITH LAA. 849/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **AL/-** ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V.ASHA, JJ.,** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** L.A.A.Nos.849/2012,25/13, 28/13, 30/13, 283/13 & 850/12 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 18[th] day of December 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ramachandran Nair , J.,** These batches of cases relate to the acquisition for the purpose of Industrial Growth Centre, Pallipuram, village of Cherthala Taluk. Out of these cases, L.A.A.Nos. 28/13, 30/13, 25/13 are from the judgments in LAR Nos.209/05, 232/03, 233/03. The reference court disposed of three cases together and the claimants have come up in appeals. L.A.A.849/12 is the judgment from L.A.R.157/05, L.A.A.850/2012 is from the judgment in L.A.R. No. 178/05 which are filed by respective claimants and L.A.A.283/13 is from the judgment in L.A.R.No. 178/05, which appeal is filed by the State. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri. Mathew John, learned Sr. Government Pleader Sri.Padmaraj for the State and learned counsel Sri.Joby Cyriac for the requisitioning authority. Since, common questions have been argued, we dispose of these appeals together. 3. Mainly, it is a case where, the claimants are seeking enhancement of land value. Learned counsel for the L.A. 849/12 & conn. Cases 2 appellants submitted that acquired properties have been categorised as category No. III viz., interior dry land and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.7,876/- per are. It is submitted that, for the land included in category No. II (dry land having no road frontage) and adjacent to the main land, the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was at the rate of Rs.10950/- per are. For dry land having main road frontage the amount awarded is Rs.14,586/- per are. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, there is no scientific basis for categorising the dry land having no road frontage and interior dry land, by awarding different market value. It is therefore, submitted that at any rate, as far as the acquired properties are concerned, they should be valued as in category No.II viz., dry land having no road frontage. 4. Learned counsel for the requisitioning authority and learned Sr.Government Pleader explained that the Ist category properties are lying on the side of the CherthalaArookutty road. As far as the properties under category II are concerned, they are just near the main road but having no road frontage. As far as category No. III are concerned, it is submitted that those acquired properties are lying farther L.A. 849/12 & conn. Cases 3 interior and therefore,they cannot be categorised as similar to properties coming under category No. II (BlockNo.III). It is therefore, submitted that unless a claimant succeeds in proving by challenging the categorisation that the properties are liable to be compared similar to properties in category No.II, the claimants will not be entitled to the land value as awarded to category No.II properties (BlockNo.III). 5. Before going further, we have noticed that as far as category No.II (Block No.III) properties are concerned, the claimants are relying upon the judgment in L.A.R. No. 67/12 and connected cases, wherein the land value awarded is Rs. 27,775/- per are. As of now, the reference court has awarded land value to the claimants herein at Rs. 20,000/- per are. 6. The remaining question is one concerning the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the silica sand. We have been informed that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded amount at the rate of Rs. 60 per cubic metre which has been enhanced to Rs. 90/- per cubic metre by a Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A. No. 1439/08. As regards the said aspect we are of the view that, all the claimants are entitled to the value of silica sand at the rate of Rs. 90/- per cubic metre and the appeals are allowed to that extent. L.A. 849/12 & conn. Cases 4 7. As far as the land value is concerned, the crucial question is whether, the lands can be categorised as category No.II (Block No.III). Sri. Mathew John relied on the contents of the reports of the commissioners appointed by the Court in this respect. Before going through the report of the Commissioner, we find that, on the first occasion the reference court had disposed of the matters, judgments were taken up in appeals before this Court and the matters were remanded back in L.A. A. No. 1293/09 and connected cases. Thereafter, fresh evidence was adduced. 8. Going by the report of the Commissioner, in L.A.A. 25/13, L.A.A. 30/13 and L.A.A. No. 28/13 the distance from Cherthala-Arookutty road to the acquired lands is 200 metres whereas in L.A.A.849/12 the distance is 100 metres. In L.A.A.No. 850/13, the distance is only 40 metres as per the mahazar. 9. With the help of the litho map, the learned counsel for the requisitioning authority explained various aspects. Going by the same, it is seen that, the properties in survey No. 185 are abutting the main road and lying parallel to main road whereas the properties in survey No. 186 are some what farther away from the properties in survey No. 185. Of course, L.A. 849/12 & conn. Cases 5 evidence is not before the trial court by reference to the distance from the said road by way of a comparison of the properties in different survey numbers. 10. But the properties in category No. II(Block No.III) are lying parallel to the main road but without the advantage of the road frontage. As far as the acquired properties in L.A.A.Nos.25/13 and 30/13 herein are concerned, they are farther away. Sri. Mathew john vehemently contended that, merely because they are farther away, they cannot be said to be less important than the properties in category No. II(Block No. III). But we find that evidence is lacking so as to readily accept the plea of the appellants that the properties in category No.III even though, are dry lands, with reference to the main road viz., Cherthala-Arookutty road, they will have definite advantage like that of the properties in category No.II itself. Even going by the report of the Commissioner, as we have already noticed, in three cases, the properties are two hundred metres away from Cherthala-Arookutty road. In one case, it is 100 metres and the last one it is 40 metres. 11. Reference was made to different judgments of this Court by the learned counsel on both sides. As far as category No.I is concerned, one of the earlier judgments of this Court is L.A. 849/12 & conn. Cases 6 ## in _**The Managing Director, K.S.I.D.C. Trivandrum, v. Janakiamma Panjakiamma & Others (2007 (3) KLJ 594)**_ wherein one of us (T.R.Ramachandran Nair J. is a party) which arose from LAR No. 116/02. Therein this Court confirmed the land value granted at the rate of Rs. 29,982/-. Sri. Mathew John invited our attention to the judgment in L.A.R No. 99/02. It is submitted that therein the property was included in category No.II and the reference court has granted land value at the rate of Rs.29,640/-. We have gone through the judgment. Therein the aspect whether categorisation of the property was correct or not has not been gone into in detail by the reference court. But by relying upon the judgment relied on by claimant, the land value has been awarded. As far as these appeals are concerned, in the grounds the claimants are relying upon the judgment in L.A.R. No. 67/02 wherein the land value awarded is Rs. 27775/- for category No. II. Therefore, as far as category No.II properties are concerned, the said judgment can be taken for guidance. 12. After considering the evidence in these cases, we are of the view that, as far as L.A.A.850/12 is concerned, the properties are lying 40 metrs from the road as per the mahazar. Out of the total extent, 7.20 ares is dry land and L.A. 849/12 & conn. Cases 7 35.51 ares of land is wet land. As far as wet land is concerned, even though, the appellants have challenged the award of the reference court, we find no reason to modify the same and to refix the land value. As far as dry lands are concerned, viz., 7.20 ares in extent, we are of the view that, since the distance is only 40 metres from the Cherthala-Arookutty road, it can be categorised as category No.II and the land value granted in L.A.R. No. 67/02 can be adopted and instead of the value now awarded by the reference court at R.20,000/- per are, we refix it as Rs. 27775/- per are and the appeal is allowed to that extent. 13. As far as L.A.A. No. 849/12 is also concerned, since the evidence available now by the report of the Commissioner shows that the properties are only at 100 metres from the Cherthala-Arookutty road, therein also, we are justified in awarding land value as in the case of category No.II properties at the rate of Rs.27775/- per are and the appeal is allowed to that extent and we refix the land value as far as 14.97 ares of land at the rate of Rs. 27775/- per are. 14. But, with regard to the appeals L.A.A. Nos. 25/13, 30/13 and 28/13, since the properties are at a distance of 200 metres away from the Cherthala-Arookutty road, and in the L.A. 849/12 & conn. Cases 8 absence of any other evidence to compare them with regard to category No.II properties, we confirm the land value at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per are and claim of the appellants for enhancement of land value is rejected. 15. L.A.A. No. 283/13, is from the judgment in L.A.R. No. 178/05 filed by the State, which is connected with L.A.A. 850/12. In the light of the fact that, we have enhanced the land value as stated already, we dismiss the appeal. 16. As far as the value of silica sand is concerned, the claimants in L.A. A Nos. 28/13,30/13 & 25/12 will be entitled for enhancement. As already stated by us the decree and judgment of the trial court will stand modified accordingly. Parties will suffer their costs in the Appeals. Sd/- **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE)** Sd/- **P.V.ASHA (JUDGE)** AL/- True copy P.A to Judge