LA.App.260 of 2015 & Conn. Cases (Koyilandy Land Acquisition)

## **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. 260 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 24/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY DATED 20-12-2014** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.** **BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI A.K.SUKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R :** - **1 RAJALAKSHMI PRATHEEKSHA HOUSE, PANTHALAYANI VILLAGE, KOYILANDY TALUK-673 305.** - **2 MANAGING DIRECTOR RBDC, (ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025.** > R1 **BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER R2 BY SRI.SHYSON P MANGUZHA** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..NOS.268/15,284/15,299/15,329/15 & 346/15 THE COURT ON 29.1.2019DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** ## **2** **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. 268 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 03/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY DATED 20-12-2014** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** ## **STATE OF KERALA** **REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.** ## **BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI A.K.SUKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** - **1 BALAKRISHNAN S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, DHANYA HOUSE, PANTHALAYANI AMSOM, KOTHAMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 686 691.** - **2 MANAGING DIRECTOR** **RBDC, (ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PALARIVATTAM, KOCHI. 682 025.** > R1 **BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKAR R2 BY SRI SHYSON P MANGUZHA** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..NOS.260/15,284/15,299/15,329/15 & 346/15 , THE COURT ON 29.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** **3** **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. 329 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 30/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY DATED 20-12-2014** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** **STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.** **BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI A.K.SUKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** - **1 PRASANTH.K PRATHEEKSHA (HOUSE), PANTHALAYANI VILLAGE, KOYILANDY TALUK-673305.** - **2 MANAGING DIRECTOR RBDC, (ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PALARIVATTAM, KOCHI-682025.** > R1 **BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKAR R2 BY SHYSON P. MANGUZHA** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App.NOS.260/15,268/15,284/15,299/15 & 346/15,THE COURT ON 29.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** **4** **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. 346 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 1/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY DATED 20-12-2014** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.** **BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI A.K.SUKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** **1 B.T.LINISH** **S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, DHANYA HOUSE, PANTHALAYANI AMSOM, KOTHAMANGALAM DESOM, KOYLANDY 673305** **2 MANAGING DIRECTOR** **RBDC, (ROAD AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682025** > R1 **BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKAR R2 BY SRI SHYSON P. MANGUZHA** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App.NOS.260/15,268/15,284/15,299/15 & 329/15 THE COURT ON 29.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** **5** **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. 284 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 13/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY DATED 20-12-2014** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY TALUK.** **BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI A.K.SUKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** - **1 P.M. RAMAKRISHNAN S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, RAMPURI, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, PANTHALAYANI VILLAGE, KOYILANDY TALUK-673 305.** - **2 SUCHEENDRAN S/O.KUMARAN, VATTAKANDI HOUSE, PANTHALAYANI VILLAGE, KOYILANDY-673 305.** - **3 THE MANAGIND DIRECTOR RBDC (ROAD AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25.** > **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKAR** - **R3 BY SRI SHYSON P. MANGUZHA** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App.NOS.260/15,268/15,299/15,329/15 &346/15 THE COURT ON 29.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** **6** **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. 299 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 7/2012 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY DATED 20-12-2014** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** **STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KOYILANDY.** ## **BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI A.K.SUKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.A.R:** - **1 CHANDRIKA W/O VASU, THULASI(H), VAZHANARITHAZHAKUNIYIL, PANTHALAYANI AMSOM, KOTHAMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK-673 305** - **2 MANAGING DIRECTOR RBDC, (ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PALARIVATTAM, KOCHI-682 025** > R1 **BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER R2 BY SRI SHYSON P. MANGUZHA** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App.NOS.26/15,268/15,284/15,329/15 & 346/15 , THE COURT ON 29.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **7** ## **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** ## **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.1/2012, 3/2012, 7/2012, 13/2012, 24/2012 and 30/2012. 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 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.13/2012, the reference court also granted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- 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 ## **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** **8** 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 40-50 metres away from Bappankad Junction. The properties acquired have got direct access from public road. 5. 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. 6. The description of the property given in Ext.R2 document shows that there is no public road on any side of it and the access to that property is through the pathways lying on its eastern and northern sides. This property is lying 500 metres away from Koyilandy Town. 7. 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 situated not far away from the National ## **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** ## **9** Highway in a commercially important locality. They have got direct access from public road. On the other hand, the land covered by Ext.R2 document is situated in a residential locality, having no commercial importance. It cannot be found that the land covered by Ext.R2 document is similarly situated as the acquired lands. 8. 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. 9. Ext.A1 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.A1 document, though it is a post notification transaction, as the basis for fixation of the market value of the acquired lands. 10. Ext.A2 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 five thousand rupees. Ext.C1 report shows that this property is situated in **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** **10** Koyilandy Town and it is situated on the side of National Highway. 11. Ext.A3 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 proerty consisted of the foundation and the pillars constructed for a shop room. The boundaries of the property shown in Ext.A3 document show that it had no road access and Ext.C1 report also mentions this fact. 12. Ext.A4 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 has got access from a pocket road which joins the National Highway and that it is situated in Koyilandy Town. 13. Ext.A5 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/-. 14. 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.A1, A2 and A5 documents, being post **11** ## **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** 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 the land shown in Ext.A1 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. 15. The value of the land shown in Exts.A3 and A4 documents also cannot be adopted as the basis for fixation of the market value of the lands acquired. In the property covered by Ext.A3 document, there was the foundation and the pillars constructed for a shop room. This property had no road access. The transaction as per Ext.A4 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.A3 and A4 documents as the basis for fixation of the market value of the lands acquired. 16. 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 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 ## **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** **12** 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. 17. In the instant case, it is proved that the property covered by Ext.R2 document, which had not even access from a public road, and which lies at a distance of 500 metres from Koyilandy Town in a residential area, had the market value of Rs.69,122/- per cent, just a month before the date of publication of notification of acquisition. The lands acquired are situated not far away from the National Highway. They are situated in 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 **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** ## **13** 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 geographical situation and proximity to National Highway, the compensation granted by the reference court does not warrant interference in appeal. 18. 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 situated not far away from Koyilandy Town, but in an area which has got lesser comercial importance. In such circumstances, the value of the land being fixed at a slightly lower rate, that is, at Rs.2,10,076/- ## **LA.App..No. 260 of 2015 & CONN.CASES** **14** per cent, would be justified. 19. In L.A.R.No.13/2012, the reference court has granted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- 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 railway overbridge and it has considerably affected the utility of that land. Considering this aspect, it cannot be found that the amount of compensation granted by the reference court for injurious affection is excessive. 20. 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