LA.App. Nos. 589, 591 & 596 of 2015 (Malayattoor-Kodanad Bridge Lands) - High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** # **WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **LA.App..No. 591 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 16/2013 of ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE,NORTH PARAVUR DATED 10-04-2015** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **T.D.BASTIN S/O.DEVASSY,THARAYIL HOUSE, MALAYATOOR,KODANAD.** **BY ADVS. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682030. 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BRIDGES SECTION,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.** ## **SRI. MURALEEDHARAN B.R, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..589/2015, LA.App..596/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A.Nos.589, 591 & 596 of 2015 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **LA.App..No. 589 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 28/2013 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **JOSEPH THOMAS PARAPPILLY HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR KARA, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.G.CLEETUS SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PADAYATTIL)** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.** **2 THE EXECUTIVE EGINEER PWD BRIDGE SECTION, ERNAKULAM-682030.** - **SRI. MURALEEDHARAN B.R, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..596/2015, LA.App..591/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A.Nos.589, 591 & 596 of 2015 3 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **LA.App..No. 596 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 27/2013 of SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR DATED 10-04-2015** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **MARY, W/O STEPHEN, PARAPPILLY HOUSE,MALAYATTOOR KARA, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MATHEW STEPHEN, S/O LATE STEPHEN, MALAYATTOOR, MALAYATTOOR P.O** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.G.CLEETUS SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PADAYATTIL)** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.** **2 THE EXECUTIVE EGINEER PWD BRIDGE SECTION, ERNAKULAM-682030.** **SRI. MURALEEDHARAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..589/2015, LA.App..591/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A.Nos.589, 591 & 596 of 2015 4 ## **L.A.A.Nos.589, 591 & 596 of 2015** ## **JUDGMENT** These appeals arise from the common judgment in a batch of land acquisition references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act"). The land acquisition references relate to the acquisition of lands made for construction of Malayatoor - Kodanad Bridge and its approach road, pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 20.10.2009. The the extent of lands involved in these matters vary from 0.71 Ares to 2.17 Ares. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value for the acquired lands at Rs.2,05,238/- per Are and on reference, the reference court enhanced the land value to Rs.3,20,170/- per Are. The claimants are aggrieved by the inadequacy of the enhancement granted by the reference court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader. 3. When the matters came up earlier on 25.03.2019, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to make available the files relating to the acquisition. Accordingly, when the matters were taken up today, the files were made available. It is evident from the files that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value based on L.A.A.Nos.589, 591 & 596 of 2015 5 Sale Deed No.5432/07 dated 30.11.2007 of Sreemoolanagaram SRO. The land involved in the said document is one measuring 4.12 Ares and the land value shown is Rs.9,95,000/-. The land value shown in the document would, therefore, come to Rs.2,41,505/- per Are. It is also seen from the files that the land involved in the basic document is one situated abutting a PWD road. The acquired lands are lands abutting a Panchayat road. It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer has, therefore, reduced the land value shown in the basic document by 15% and fixed the land value for the acquired lands on that basis at Rs.2,05,238/-. It is further seen that since the basic document is one executed on 30.11.2007 and the lands were notified for acquisition only on 20.10.2009, the reference court re-fixed the land value by giving 15% addition per year towards escalation of the land value and by giving 20% addition therefrom, for locational importance. It is on that basis that the reference court has come to the amount of Rs.3,20,170/- per Are. The question is whether the land value re-fixed by the reference court represents the fair and reasonable land value to be given to the landowners. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants, placing reliance on the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the reference court, submitted that the basic document is one in respect of a land situated approximately 2.5 km away from Malayattoor Post L.A.A.Nos.589, 591 & 596 of 2015 6 Office Junction. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that it is not a place of any commercial importance. According to the learned counsel, insofar as the acquired lands are situated within 100 meters from Malayattoor Post Office Junction which is a commercially important place in the proximity of the internationally acclaimed pilgrimage centre namely Malayattoor St.Thomas Shrine, the Land Acquisition Officer ought not have fixed the land value based on the said document. The learned counsel attempted to substantiate the submissions made in this behalf, placing reliance on the following passages in the report of the Advocate Commissioner : ക�ലട� - മലയ�റർ PWD ററ�ഡ�ൽ post office junction ൽ ന�ന� 24 മ�റർ ത�ക� മ�റ� പഞ�യത� ററ�ഡ�ന� പട�ഞ�റ� വശത�യ� LAR 27/13 തല വസവ�, ട� പഞ�യത� ററ�ഡ�ന� ക�ഴക� വശത�യ� LAR 28/13 തല വസവ� സ��� ത"യന. LAR 16/13 തല വസവകകൾ ട� post office junction ൽ ന�ന� 74 മ�റർ ത�ക� മ�റ� ട� പഞ�യത� ററ�ഡ�ന� പട�ഞ�റ� ഭ�ഗത� സ **�** � ത"യന **==> picture [78 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** തപ�ന� വ�ല വസവ�ന� ഉറ(ശ� 250 മ�റർ വടക�മ�റ� St.Thomas Higher Secondary School, St. Thomas L.P. School എന�വയ�, ട� വസവകകള�ൽ ന�ന� ഉറ(ശ� 300 മ�റർ പട�ഞ�റ മ�റ� തവറ�നറ� റ.�സ�റല�, Telephone Exchange, KSEB ഓഫ�സ� എന�വയ� സ **�** � ത"യന. ഇതരത�ൽ ട� സ�പനങളല8�� തപ�ന� വ�ല വസകൾക� ഉറ(ശ� 500 മ�റർ ചറളവ�ൽ സ **�** � ത"യന��ണ�. **==> picture [87 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** അട�സ�ന പമ�ണമ�യ� തപ�ന� വ�ല ആഫ�സർ സ>�കര�ച�ടള ശ�മലനഗര� SRO യ�തല 5432/2007 നമർ ആധ�രത�ൽ വ�വര�കന വസ തപ�ന� വ�ല വസകള�ൽ ന�ന� ഉറ(ശ� 2 1/2 ക�റല�മ�റർ ക�ഴക� മ�റ� മലയ�റർ - ക�ടപ�റ PWD ററ�ഡ�ന� ക�ഴക� വശത�യ� സ **�** � ത"യന. ട� വസവകകൾ എ��ർകക� സർക�ര�തന പ��ന�ധ�കര�ച� .�ജര�യ�രന Revenue Inspector മ�രതട സ.�യറത�തട കമ�ഷണർ L.A.A.Nos.589, 591 & 596 of 2015 7 . **�** . ��ര�ചറ�ഞ�ടള��ണ� ട� വസ മലയ�റർ മലയതട അട�വ�രത�ന� അടത�യ� സ � ത"യന ട� basic document വസവ�ൽ ന�ന� ഉറ(ശ� 1km മ�റ�യ�ണ� കര�ശമട�. ട� വസ . മലയ�റർ മൺപ�ട "�റയ� ത�കവശത�ണ� തപ�ന� വ�ല വസകളമ�യ� ��ര�മT� ത"യറമ�ൾ basic document തല വസവകകളതട സമ�പത� ജനവ�സ� ��തര കറവ�ണ�. . കചവട സ�പനങള� ഇല�ത��ണ� **==> picture [78 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** തപ�ന� വ�ല വസവ.കൾ post office junction തU ത�ക� ഭ�ഗത�യ� തപര�യ�ർ പഴയതട വടക� ഭ�ഗതമ�യ� സ **�** � ത"യന. ട� പറXശ� residential area യ�ണ�. ധ�ര�ള� വ�ടകൾ റ"ർമയ�യ� സ **�** � ത"യന. ധ�ര�ള� കടകൾ, beauty parlour തടങ�യവയ� , ബ�ങക�ൾ, St. Thomas School SBT ATM 500 മ�റർ ചറളവ�ൽ സ **�** � ത"യന. ട� തപ�ന� വ�ല വസവ.കള�തല ബ�ക� വസകള�ൽ "ജ���" ത�ങ� റപ�ലള മരങൾ കണ�ടള��ണ�. ജലലഭT�യ�, തപ�തസ�പനങളതട സ�മ�പTവ�, bus stop, St. Thomas വല�യ പള� എന�വയ�റലകള ദര� കണക�തലടകറമ�ൾ തപ�ന� വ�ല വസവ.കൾക� അട�സ�ന ആധ�രത�തല വസവ�തനക�ൾ വളതര അധ�ക� പ�ധ�നT� റ��ന�കന��ണ�. അട�സ�ന ആധ�രത�തല വസ സ��� . ത"യന ഭ�ഗത� ജനവ�സ� ��തര കറവ� കചവട സ�പനങൾ ഇല�തതമ�ണ� 5. No objection is seen filed by the State to the report of the Advocate Commissioner. As such, in so far as the report of the Advocate Commissioner is part of the records in the reference cases, the same can be taken note of by this Court in the matter of examining the correctness of the decision of the reference court. It is evident from the extracted portions of the report that the acquired lands are situated within 75 metres from the Malayattoor Post Office Junction. It is also seen that Malayattoor Post Office Junction is a commercially important place and there are many places of worship, public offices and commercial establishments in and around the said junction. It is also evident from the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the L.A.A.Nos.589, 591 & 596 of 2015 8 property involved in the basic document is situated about 2.5 kms away from the Malayattoor junction and it is not a place of commercial importance like Malayattoor Post Office junction. The said place is also not a thickly inhabited area like the surroundings of Malayattoor Post Office junction. There is, therefore, no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the fixation of land value made by the Land Acquistion Officer and the reference court for the acquired lands with reference to the land value shown in the basic document was not justified. The materials on record indicate that the acquired lands are certainly superior in terms of its value at least by 20 percent when compared to the land involved in the basic document. It is settled that it is not safe to fix the land value based on locational importance alone. But, the claimants have not produced any documents indicating the land value of similar or identical lands. They have only established that the acquired lands and the lands involved in the basic document are not comparable. In the circumstances, the reference court cannot be found fault with for having fixed the land value based on the land value shown in the basic document by giving some additions. The question, therefore, is whether the said fixation of the land value made by the reference court is correct. Having held that the acquired lands were superior by 20% in terms of its land value when compared to the land involved in the basic document, according to me, the comparable land L.A.A.Nos.589, 591 & 596 of 2015 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** value for the acquired lands can be arrived at by adding 20 per cent to the land value shown in the basic document. The land value for the acquired lands per Are would, therefore, come to Rs.2,89,806/-. Since the basic document is one executed in the year 2007 and the notification was one issued in the year 2009, the land value at the time of the notification is to be worked out by adding the yearly escalation as held by the apex Court in **Krishi Ultpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan v. Bibin Kumar and Another** [(2004)2 SCC 283] and in **General manager, Oil and natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel** [(2008)14 SCC 745]. The lands acquired being those situated in a semi-urban area, if the land value is worked out adding yearly escalation at the rate of 12.5% in this fashion, the same would come to Rs.3,66,785/-. The land value of the acquired lands is, therefore, fixed at Rs. 3,66,785/- per Are. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the reference court has granted statutory benefits only for the land value, and not for the enhanced compensation awarded. The approach made by the reference court in this regard is incorrect. The appellants are entitled to statutory benefits for the enhanced compensation. In the result, the land acquisition appeals are allowed in part and the land value is refixed at Rs.3,66,785/- per Are. The L.A.A.Nos.589, 591 & 596 of 2015 **==> picture [15 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation on that basis. It is clarified that they are entitled to statutory benefits for the enhanced compensation. The appellants are also entitled to proportionate costs. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** sru