LA.App..556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 117/2010 DATED 07-12-2012 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS/1ST RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),KOZHIKODE.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SYAMJI RAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT:** **1 ARIYAT SAINABA W/O.PATTOLATH MAMMED KOYA,SUNFLOWER,PUTHIYARA,KASABA VILLAGE,KOZHIKODE. 673004 2 THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC,KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD R2 BY SRI.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.120/2014, CO.42/2015(C), LA.App..651/2012(C), LA.App..825/2013, LA.App..826/2013, LA.App..273/2014, LA.App..311/2014, LA.App..581/2014, LA.App..879/2014, LA.App..220/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **CO.No.120 OF 2014 IN LA.App.. 556/2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR NO. 117 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE.** ## **CROSS OBJECTOR/1ST RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** ## **ARIYAT SAINABA** **W/O.LATE PATTOLATH MAMMED KOYA, SUNFLOWER, PUTHIYARA, KASABA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE 673 004.** **BY ADVS.** **SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **- RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT 2ND RESPONDENT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), KOZHIKODE - 673 601.** **2 THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **R2 BY ADV.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SYAMJI RAM** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC,KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD R2 BY ADV.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD** **THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.42/2015(C), LA.App..651/2012(C), LA.App..556/2013, LA.App..825/2013, LA.App..826/2013, LA.App..273/2014, LA.App..311/2014, LA.App..581/2014, LA.App..879/2014, LA.App..220/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **3** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **CO.No.42 OF 2015 IN LA.App.. 311/2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN L A R.NO:39/2010 DATED 11-102013 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3/CLAIMANTS:** - **1 VIVEK RAVEENDRANATH S/O LATE RAVEENDRANATH PADMA VILLA, ATHANIKKAL, KOZHIKODE- 673 001** - **2 ARUN RAVEENDRANATH S/O LATE RAVEENDRANATH, PADMA VILLA, ATHANIKKAL, KOZHIKODE- 673 001** - **3 VINEETH RAVEENDRANATH S/O LATE RAVEENDRANATH PADMA VILLA, ATHANIKKAL, KOZHIKODE- 673 001** **BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENT 4 & 5/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KCRIP, KOZHIKODE- 673 020** - **2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PWD) KRF BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPRAM- 695 001** - **3 THE COORDINATOR & EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KCRIP PWD KOZHIKODE-673 020** - **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SYAMJI RAM R2 & R3 BY SRI.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD** **THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.120/2014, LA.App..651/2012(C), LA.App..556/2013,LA.App..825/2013,LA.App..826/2013,LA.App..273/2 014,LA.App..311/2014,LA.App..581/2014,LA.App..879/2014, LA.App..220/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **4** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **LA.App..No.651 OF 2012(C)** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 44/2010 DATED 29-02-2012 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:** - **1 N.A.ABRAHAM(JUNIOR) S/O.N.A. ABRAHAM, NEDUMPARAMBIL, CALICUT-673 004.** - **2 LT.COL ROBIN GEORGE ABRAHAM S/O.GEORGE ABRAHAM, HOUSE NO.D3, V AVENUE, SAINIK PURI P.O., SECUNDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH.** **BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A) KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, KOZHIKODE673 001.** - **2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 THE CO-ORDINATOR AND ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 001.** ## **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SYAMJI RAM R2 & R3 BY SRI.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.120/2014, CO.42/2015(C), LA.App..556/2013, LA.App..825/2013, LA.App..826/2013,** ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **5** **LA.App..273/2014, LA.App..311/2014, LA.App..581/2014, LA.App..879/2014, LA.App..220/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **6** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **LA.App..No.825 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 42/2010 DATED 29-02-2012 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 N.A.ABRAHAM** - **S/O.LATE DR N.A ABRAHAM,NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE,PAVAMANI ROAD,KASABA AMSOM,KARIAKUNNU DESOM,CALICUT 673 004 (DIED AND ADDITIONAL 2ND APPELLANT IMPLEADED)** - **ADDL. N.A.ABRAHAM(JUNIOR), S/O LATE N.A.ABRAHAM APPELL NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAVAMANI BOARD, KASABA ANT 2 AMSOM,KARIAKUNNU DESOM. (SOLE APPELLANT DIED AND ADDITIONAL 2ND APPELLANT IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 14/10/16 IN IA 1054/16).** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, KOZHIKODE 673 001** - **2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** - **3 THE CO-ORDINATOR AND ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CIVIL STATION P.O,KOZHIKODE 673 001** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SYAMJI RAM R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.120/2014, CO.42/2015(C),** ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **7** **LA.App..651/2012(C), LA.App..556/2013, LA.App..826/2013, LA.App..273/2014, LA.App..311/2014, LA.App..581/2014, LA.App..879/2014, LA.App..220/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **8** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **LA.App..No.826 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 37/2010 DATED 29-02-2012 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** ## **SMT. MARIYAM ABRAHAM** **W/O.N.A.ABRAHAM, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE PO, CALICUT 673 004.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, KOZHIKODE 673 001** - **2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **3 THE CO-ORDINATOR AND ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CIVIL STATION PO, KOZHIKODE 673 001.** ## **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SYAMJI RAM** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.120/2014, CO.42/2015(C), LA.App..651/2012(C), LA.App..556/2013, LA.App..825/2013, LA.App..273/2014, LA.App..311/2014, LA.App..581/2014, LA.App..879/2014, LA.App..220/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **9** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **LA.App..No.273 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 115/2010 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KCRIP, KOZHIKODE.** **2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOZHIKODE.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SYAMJI RAM** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN LAR:** **RADHAKUMARI W/O.PARTHASARATHI, 'KARIYAL', 17/950, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673004.** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.120/2014, CO.42/2015(C), LA.App..651/2012(C), LA.App..556/2013, LA.App..825/2013, LA.App..826/2013, LA.App..311/2014, LA.App..581/2014, LA.App..879/2014, LA.App..220/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **10** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **LA.App..No.311 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 39/2010 DATED 11-10-2013 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR:** **STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA)KCRIP, KOZHIKODE** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SYAMJI RAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN LAR:** - **1 VIVEK RAVINDRANATH S/O.LATE RAVINDRANATH, PADMA VILLA, ATHANIKKAL, KOZHIKODE-673001** - **2 ARUN RAVINDRANATH S/O.LATE RAVINDRANATH, PADMA VILLA ,ATHANIKKAL, KOZHIKODE-673001** - **3 VINEETH RAVINDRANATH S/O.LATE RAVINDRANATH, PADMA VILLA ,ATHANIKKAL, KOZHIKODE-673001** - **4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (PWD) KRF BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001** - **5 THE CO-ORDINATOR AND EXE.ENGINEER, KCRIP, PWD , KOZHIKODE-673001** **R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN R4 & R5 BY SRI.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.120/2014, CO.42/2015(C),** ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **11** **LA.App..651/2012(C), LA.App..556/2013, LA.App..825/2013, LA.App..826/2013, LA.App..273/2014, LA.App..581/2014, LA.App..879/2014, LA.App..220/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **12** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **LA.App..No.581 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 33/2010 DATED 29-02-2012 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS:** **S.HYDER KHAN ALIAS NIZAM S/O SHAMSUDHIN, TAHSIN HOUSE,DOOR NO.28/2508, P.O.NELLIKKODE PIN 673 016, NELLIKODE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD, KERLA ROAD FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 THE CO-ORDINATOR AND ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 001** **R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SYAMJI RAM R2 BY SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.120/2014, CO.42/2015(C), LA.App..651/2012(C), LA.App..556/2013, LA.App..825/2013, LA.App..826/2013, LA.App..273/2014, LA.App..311/2014, LA.App..879/2014, LA.App..220/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **13** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **LA.App..No.879 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 35/2010 DATED 29-02-2012 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANT:** **SREEJITH K.B.** **S/O LATE BALAKRISHNAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, KASABA VILLAGE, CALICUT 673004** **BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, KOZHIKODE 673001 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 673001 3 THE CO-ORDINATOR AND ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE 673001** **R1 & R2 BY GP-SRI. SYAMJI RAM** **R3 BY SRI.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.120/2014, CO.42/2015(C), LA.App..651/2012(C), LA.App..556/2013, LA.App..825/2013, LA.App..826/2013, LA.App..273/2014, LA.App..311/2014, LA.App..581/2014, LA.App..220/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **14** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **LA.App..No.220 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN LAR 32/2010 DATED 24-07-2013 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR:** **STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SPL. TAHSILDAR (LA), KCRIP,KOZHIKODE-673004. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SYAMJI RAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN LAR:** |**1**|**SASIKUMAR M,**| |---|---| ||**S/O.MUTTOLIKKANDY SAROJINI, “SHALINA” PUTHIYARA,**| ||**CALICUT-673 004.**| |**2**|**THE CHIEF ENGINEER,**| ||**PWD, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM-**| ||**695 001.**| |**3**|**CO-ORDINATOR AND ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER**| ||**KCRIP,PWD, KOZHIKODE-673 004.**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VARUGHESE**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM**| ||**R2 & R3 BY BY SRI.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, SC, KERALA ROAD**| ||**FUND BOARD**| **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, ALONG WITH CO.120/2014, CO.42/2015(C), LA.App..651/2012(C), LA.App..556/2013, LA.App..825/2013, LA.App..826/2013, LA.App..273/2014, LA.App..311/2014, LA.App..581/2014, LA.App..879/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **15** ## **C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **& R.NARAYANA PISHARADI,JJ.** ## **************************** L.A.A.Nos.556 of 2013 & Cross Objection No.120 of 2014, L.A.A.No.311 of 2014 & Cross Objection No.42 of 2015 L.A.A.Nos.273 of 2014, 220 of 2015, 651 of 2012, 825 of 2013, 826 of 2013, 581 of 2014 and 879 of 2014 **-------------------------------------------------------------** Dated this the 17[th] day of June, 2019 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **C.K.Abdul Rehim, J** Since all the above appeals and the cross objections arise out of the same land acquisition proceedings, initiated for the same purpose, through very same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, we have considered all the appeals together and dispose of them through this common judgment. L.A.A.Nos.651 of 2012, 825 of 2013, 826 of 2013, 581 of 2014 and 879 of 2014 are appeals filed by the claimants against the common judgment of the Sub Court, Kozhikode, dated 29.02.2012, in L.A.R.Nos.44/2010, ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **16** 42/2010, 37/2010, 33/2010 and 35/2010. L.A.A.No.556 of 2013 is filed by the State against judgment in L.A.R.No.117/2010, dated 07/12/2012 of the same Court. C.O.No.120/2014 is the cross objection filed by the claimants in the said case. L.A.A.Nos.220 of 2015 and 273 of 2014 are also appeals filed by the State against a common judgment passed by the said Court dated 24.07.2013. The claimant in L.A.A. No.273 of 2014 had filed Cross Objection, C.O.No.42/2015 in the said appeal. L.A.R.No.311/2014 is another appeal filed by the State against the judgment in L.A.R.No.39/2010, dated 11.10.2013. 2. The acquisition was for the purpose of widening of Stadium Junction, Puthiyara road in Kozhikode city. The date of publication of Section 4(1) notification was on 29.03.2008. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarded compensation by grouping the acquired properties into two categories based on importance of the location, ie: the proximity to the two terminal junctions of the road which was proposed to be widened. With respect to the first category the LAO fixed land value at the rate of Rs.2,75,000/- per cent, by relying upon the value reflected in Document No.1280/2006 of SRO, Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as the 'basic document'). With respect to the other category, the LAO fixed land value at the rate of Rs.2,60,000/- **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **17** per cent, by a reducing of 5% from the value of the basic document. In the reference cases, the court below enhanced the land value and refixed the same at different rates in different judgments. In the common judgment in L.A.R.No.31/2010 and connected cases dated 09.02.2012 (four cases in which State had filed appeals), the land value was enhanced to Rs.9,50,000/- per cent, by relying on Ext.A1 document produced in those cases, which is a “janmam assignment deed” registered as document No.175/1999 of the Sub Registrar office, Kozhikode. The said document was executed on 12.03.1999 and it reflected a value of Rs.5,00,000/- per cent. The court below gave increase the rate of at 10% per year for the time gap of nine years and thus refixed the value of the acquired properties at Rs.9,50,000/-. 3. In the judgment in L.A.R.No.117/2010 dated 07.12.2012, the reference court relied upon the very same Ext.A1 document mentioned above. There also, 90% increase was allowed for the time gap from Ext.A1. But in addition to that, Rs.50,000/- per cent was added stating the reason that the acquired properties are situated in a more commercially important location. In L.A.R.No.39/2010, through the judgment dated 11.10.2013, the reference court refixed the land value at Rs.10,00,000/- per cent by following the very same **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **18** reasoning. 4. In the common judgment dated 29.02.2012 against which the claimants have filed 5 appeals mentioned as above. The reference court had refixed the land value at Rs.5,50,000/- per cent, by relying upon Ext.A3 document, which is Sale Deed No.234/2007 of the Sub Registrar Office, Chevayoor. The land value reflected in the said document is Rs.6,66,159/- per cent. But the court below found that the acquired properties are situated in a less important area when compared to the properties covered under Ext.A3. Therefore, it was found that refixation of the value at Rs.5,00,000/- per cent will be reasonable. However, considering the time gap of one year between Ext.A3 and the date of acquisition, 10% increase in value was allowed. Accordingly, the reference court refixed the land value in that case at Rs.5,50,000/- per cent. 5. In the appeals fixed by the State, it is mainly contended that the land value refixed by the reference court is highly excessive and exorbitant. It is pointed out that the non-acceptance of the basic document relied upon by the LAO, for the purpose of fixing the land value, is illegal and erroneous, especially when the court below found that the property covered under the basic document is similar in nature and is similarly situated as that of the acquired properties. It is ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **19** further contended that the reliance placed by the reference court on Ext.A1 document is highly illegal, erroneous and improper. It is pointed out that Ext.A1 is a document executed at a point of time which is more than nine years prior to the date of acquisition. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State/appellants had relied on a ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Ramesh Bhai Jeevan Bhai Patel and Another [(2008) 14 SCC 745]** , in which it is held as follows:- ''12. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied on sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject of acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land . What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **20** 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the rate of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.” 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors and respondents in other appeals contended that , refixation of land value at Rs.5,50,000/- per cent is highly erroneous and unsustainable in view of the land value refixed at Rs.10,00,000/- per cent in L.A.R.No.117/2010 and 39/2010 and at Rs.9,50,000/- in the common judgment in L.A.R.No.32/2010 and 115/2010. It is contended that, non-acceptance of Ext.A1 document mentioned above in the common judgment dated 29.02.2012, is highly illegal and erroneous. It is contended that there is no cogent and justifiable reasons mentioned for non-acceptance of Ext.A1 as the best comparable sale instance. The mere reasoning mentioned in the said judgment that the value reflected in Ext.A1 document is exorbitant, has no basis at all. 7. The cross objector in C.O.No.42/2015 in L.A.A.No.311/2014 had pointed out that the reference court in ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** **21** L.A.R.No.39/2010 had went highly erred in not accepting Ext.A6 document. Ext.A6 is the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2010 of the same court which arise out of the very same acquisition. It is pointed out that the reference court had refixed the land value in that vase at Rs.9,50,000/- per cent and an appeal filed by the State against the said judgment was dismissed as this court, since this court had refused to condone the delay occurred in filing the said appeal. It is further pointed out that, an S.L.P filed by the State against dismissal of the said appeal was also not entertained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the above aspect, the learned Government Pleader had controverted the contention by pointing out that, the appeal against the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2010 was not dismissed on merits either by this court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. While considering the rival contentions, the first question which need to be evaluated is, whether the acquisitioning or the requisitioning authority had succeeded in proving that the reliance placed by the LAO on the basic document is justifiable or reasonable. 9. As already narrated, the basic document relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer is Document No.1280/2006 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kozhikide, which was executed on 14.12.2006, and which reflected land value of Rs.2,75,000/- per cent. The respondents ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **22** in the reference cases had failed to produce the said document or its certified copy in evidence before the court below; nor any oral evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents to substantiate comparability of that land. Therefore no evidence was available before the reference court with respect to comparability of the land covered under the said document with that of the acquired properties. It remains trite that a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act s not an appeal from the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the otherhand, the reference court had to treat the reference as an original proceedings and the land value has to be fixed based on adjudication and in arriving specific finding with respect to the market value which prevailed in the locality as on the date of the acquisition. Therefore it is ti be held that, the State as well as the Requisitioning Authority had failed to prove before the reference court that the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by placing reliance on the basic document was legally justifiable or reasonable. Learned Government Pleader had pointed out that, there were evidences available before the reference court by way of commission report in certain cases, wherein the nature and similarity of the property covered under the basic document was brought out and was proved to be comparable with the acquired properties. Out ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **23** attention is drawn to the observations contained in the judgment in LAR No.117/2010, wherein it is found that by going through Ext.X1 report of the Advocate Commissioner and Ext.X2 Sketch , it is evident that the basic land is also situated on the side of the very same road, very near to the acquired property. But the finding is to the effect that even though it could be held that the basic land and the acquired land are similar and similarly situated, it cannot be held that the consideration shown in the basic documents reflects the true market value prevailing, especially when the respondents have not examined the parties to the said document. Therefore the reference court found that the value reflected in the basic document cannot be adopted to arrive probable market value of the acquired properties. Similar observations are there in other judgments also and the failure to adduce evidence by the respondents to prove its comparability, will definitely preclude the reference court from placing reliance on the value reflected in the said document. 10. If there is no evidence adduced before the reference court to place reliance on the value reflected in the basic document, for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired properties, then the question to be considered is as to whether the claimants were successful in proving any other comparable sale instance, which can ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **24** be depended for fixing the market value. Ext.A1 document mentioned above is a common document produced in all the reference cases, upon which reliance was placed by the claimants. In the Commission Report marked in many of the cases, the Advocate Commissioners had reported about comparability of land covered under Ext.A1 with that of the acquired properties. It is reported that, the property covered under Ext.A1 is a land having an extent of 5.19 cents and it is situated at a distance if approximately 500 Meters away from the acquired properties. The land in question is situated on the side of a by-line starting from Mavoor road, which is one of the most commercially important avenue in Kozhikode city. It is pointed out that, commercial value of the said property is much less than the acquired land, because the property covered under Ext.A1 is not having any direct frontage to Mavoor road, whereas all the acquired properties are having forntage to the Stadium-Puthiyara Road. In some of the Commission Reports, it is mentioned that, property covered under Ext.A1 is a property which is lying in a lower level and there will be water logging during monsoon season; and hence the property cannot be utilised for construction of any commercial building. However, conclusions based on the evidence adduced can be summed up that, the property covered under Ext.A1 is a property ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **25** which is laying in a lower level and there will be water flooding during monsoon season; and hence the property cannot be utilised for construction of any commercial buildings. However, evidence is available to the effect that, the property covered under Ext.A1 is a property situated nearer to the acquired properties, among all the exemplars produced. It is also evident that, the said property is situated slightly inteerior from the main road and cannot have a commercial potentiality as that of the acquired properties. 11. Ext.A5 produced in LAR No.117/2010 is the judgment in LAR No.38/2010, which pertains to property acquired under the very same notification. It is pertinent to note that, the reference court in the said judgment had also considered Ext.A1 document. But without any basis or materials, it was found that the value reflected in Ext.A1 is exorbitant. Though a guess work done, market value of the acquired properties in that case was fixed by the reference court at Rs.6,00,000/- per cent. The judgment in LAR.No.118/2010, about which reference is made in the foregoing paragraphs, is produced as Ext.A6 in LAR No.39/2010. As observed above, the reference court in LAR No.118/2010 had refixed the value at 9,50,0000/-. It could be noted that the reference court in that case had placed reliance on Ext.A1 document itself in arriving at the market value. Ext.A2 and A3 ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **26** are two other sale deeds produced to prove comparable sale instances. Ext.A2 is a document executed in the year 2005 and it reflected value at the rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per cent. Similarly, Ext.A3 is another document executed in the year 2007, which reflected a value of Rs.6,66,159/- per Are. But, it has come out in evidence that both the properties are situated at a distance of 1Km and 1.5 Km respectively, away from the acquired properties. Those are properties situated in an entirely different locations within the city. Similar is the situation with respect to the property covered under Ex.A4 sale deed. That property is also situated far away from the acquired land. Hence, we are of the opinion that the reasoning mentioned by the reference court in various cases, in not accepting those instances of sale as comparable for fixing the market value, is perfectly justified and is to be sustained. 12. As we have already found that there is no evidence available before the court below to arrive at a conclusion that the land value fixed by the LAO by relying upon the basic document is correct and justifiable, we are of the view that the reference court was justified in not relying on the basic document for refixing the market value. As we have already pointed out, reliance placed by the reference court on Ext.A3 document in awarding compensation at the ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **27** rate of Rs.5,50,000/- in some of the cases also cannot be justified as the land covered in Ext. A3 is not similarly situated because there is no proximity of location, the question ultimately rings around as to whether reliance placed by the reference court on Ext.A1 document for fixing the market value can be uphold or not. 13. Evidently, there is a time gap of nine years between Ext.A1 document and the date of acquisition in the present cases. As per the dictum contained in **ONGC** 's case (supra), the method of fixing market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years, where no evidence of contemporaneous sale transaction is available, is a reasonable and safe method. But it is cogent that, the relied on transaction should be preceding the subject acquisition only by a few years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has put a criteria in this regard as up to 4 to 5 years. Beyond that, it was held that, it may be unsafe to rely on such transactions, even if it relates to a neighboring land. The reasoning mentioned by the apex court in this regard is that, it may be unsafe and unreliable standard whether the gap is larger, by adopting the yearly increase method, which may have many pit falls. It is observed that, this may be because, over the course of years, the rate of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change, apart from ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **28** occurrence of periods of stagnation in price or sudden spurts in price or sudden spurts in prices affecting the same standard on this court and has got binding nature. But, in the case at hand it is more unsafe to rely on other exemplars, because those transaction are not relating to any land which is comparable on the points of proximity or prominence of the location. In cases where the reference court had awarded Rs.9,50,000/- and 10,00,000/- a flat rate of 10% increase was awarded for the entire period on nine years. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that in **ONGC** 's case (supra) itself the guidelines are fixed for the purpose of granting the escalation with respect to the time gap. The guidelines prescribes that, with respect to the property situated in urban area the increase should be at the rate of 10% to 15% which need to be calculated on a cumulative basis. Therefore, on an over all consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances prevailing, and to do complete justice in the matter of fixing just and reasonable compensation, we are of the opinion that Ext.A1 document itself can be relied upon by restricting the increase for the time gap to a period of four years, instead of the total period of nine year, as adopted by the reference court in some of the cases. Since there is no dispute that the property is situated in urban area, we are of the opinion that the increase should be given at the rate of ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **29** 15% with cumulative effect. 14. Calculated on the above said basis, we are inclined to refix the land value in all the above cases based on the following calculations. The value reflected in Ext.A1 document, which is executed in the year 1999, is Rs.5,00,000/- per cent. When 15% increase for four years with cumulative effect is added on to the said value, it will work out at Rs.8,74,503.12, which we are inclined to round up to Rs.8,75,000/- per cent. Thus we are fixing the land value with respect to the acquired properties in all these cases, at the reate of Rs.8,75,000/- per cent. 15. In Cross Objection No. 42/2015 filed in L.A.A No. 311/2014, which pertains to L.A.R No. 39/2010, the claimant is seeking compensation with respect to demolition of the compound wall also. The claim of compensation is for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Evidently the claimant had produced the report of an approved valuer to the effect that a sum of Rs.3,49,754/- is required for construction of the compound wall, all along the boundary in between the acquired portion and the remaining portion of property of the claimant. But the court below had rejected the claim on the basis that the claimant have failed to produce any evidence to substantiate that there existed a compound wall which was demolished because of ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **30** the acquisition and that damages in that respect was caused to the claimant. It is pointed out that, there is oral testimony of the claimant himself as AW1. But that by itself cannot be accepted as clear proof with respect to damage sustained because of demolition of an existing compound wall. Therefore, we are not inclined to allow the claim in the regard, since we hold the findings of the reference court does not warrants interference. 16. With respect to appeals filed by the claimants, if there is any deficiency in the court fee paid to match with the amount of land value refixed in this judgment, such appellants/claimants will be entitled to remit the deficit court fee within a period of fifteen days from today, in accordance with the dictum contained in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Chandrashekhar v. Special** ## **Land Acquisition Officer [(2009) 14 SCC 441].** 17. In the result, all the appeals are allowed in part and the two Cross Objections are hereby dismissed. It is made clear that the appellants/claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the refixed compensation of land value, as provided under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 18. **I.A Nos.01/2018 and 01/2019 in L.A.A No. 826 of 2013, 01/2018 and 02/2019 in L.A.A No. 825 of 2013 &** ## **LA.App..No.556 OF 2013 & CONNEC.CASES** ## **31** ## **01/2018 and 02/2019 in L.A.A 825 of 2013 & 01/2018 and 02/2019 in L.A.A No. 879 of 2014** Since we have already disposed of the appeals limiting the enhancement of land value to Rs.8,75,000/- per cent, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the applications can be dismissed as not pressed. Hence we order accordingly. 19. C.O No. 120/2014 is filed in L.A.A No. 556/2013. The CO is filed with a delay of 132 days along with an application seeking condonation of delay. CM.Appl.No. 725/2014 is filed in this respect. We are not inclined to condone the delay since we do not find any merit in the reasons mentioned with respect to the delay caused. Hence the delay condonation petition is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the Cross Objection will stand dismissed. The Cross Objector/claimant will be eligible for refund of court fee to extent permissible. ## Sd/- **C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE** ## Sd/- **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr **True Copy PS to Judge**