L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/21ST ASWINA, 1939 LA.App..No. 184 of 2009 ( ) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE DECREE IN LAR 9/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 14/08/2006 APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA (THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR), LA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT:: ------------------------------------- 1. S.BEENA, D/O.SANTHAMMA, CHAKKA VEEDU, VAYYAMOOLA, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. _(THE NAME OF R2 WILL STAND SUBSTITUTED BY THE FOLLOWING RESPONDENT._ THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, P.B.NO.5424, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, MUSCAT SQUARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. _(VIDE ORDER DATED 03/11/2009)_ R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2017 ALONG WITH LAA NOS.224/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 13-10-2017, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J & ANU SIVARAMAN, J** *** * * * * * * * * * * * * *** L.A.Appeal Nos.184, 224, 257, 717, 872, 1008 and 1119 of 2009, & 31, 310, 484, 566, 690, 732, 904 and 1145 of 2010 & Cross Objection No.110 of 2010 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of October 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Shaffique, J** These Land Acquisition appeals are arising from Reference Cases for which land had been acquired for the development of Thiruvananthapuram International Airport. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act') was published on 10/08/2004. The land involved in the acquisition were situated at Pettah Village. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'LAO') categorized the land into five different categories. Category No.1 included lands having road frontage and the lands which had lost road frontage being partly acquired during the 1[st] phase of acquisition. Lands lying behind category No.1 which have no direct access to the road except through pathway has been categorised as Category No.2. 2 L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases Category No.3 includes lands lying on either side of the bye-road and the lands lying on the western banks of Parvathi Puthanar. Lands lying behind category No.3 which are dry, come under Category No.4 and wet lands partly converted into dry lands are categorized as category No.5. These cases relate to land coming under category Nos.1 to 4 alone. In respect of category No.1, the LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,62,686/- per Are, Category No.2 at Rs.1,09,357/- per Are, Category No.3 at Rs.1,21,507/- per Are and Category No.4 at Rs.97,206/- per Are. 2. In respect of these cases, the Reference Court refixed the land value at different rates which are shown as under: |**_Sl.No._**|**_LAA_**|**_LAR_**|**_Value fixed by_**<br>**_the LAO - per_**<br>**_Are_**|**_Value refixed by_**<br>**_Reference_**<br>**_Court -per Are_**| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|717/2009|250/2007|97,206/-|13,23,500/-| |2|1008/2009|241/2007|97,206/-|13,23,500/-| |3|1119/2009|271/2007|97,206/-|13,23,500/-| |4|31/2010|247/2007|1,62,686/-|16,54,307/-| |5|872/2009|265/2007|1,21,507/-|14,88,000/-| |6|224/2009|246/2007|97,206/-|16,54,307/-| |7|257/2009|251/2007|97,206/-|16,54,307/-| |8|184/2009|9/2008|97,206/-|16,54,307/-| |9|566/2010|655/2008|97,206/-|17,00,000/-| |10|310/2010|657/2008|97,206/-|17,00,000/-| |11|1145/2010|659/2008|1,21,507/-|17,00,000/-| 3 L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases |12|690/2010|664/2008|1,09,357/-|17,00,000/-| |---|---|---|---|---| |13|484/2010|660/2008|97,206/-|17,00,000/-| |14|904/2010|661/2008|97,206/-|17,00,000/-| |15|732/2010|656/2008|1,09,357/-|17,00,000/-| 3. The appeals filed before this Court was originally disposed of refixing the land value at different rates depending on the judgment in earlier Land Acquisition Appeals. In L.A.A.No.566 of 2010 and L.A.A.No.1145 of 2010 and Cross Objection No.110/2010, the land value was refixed as per judgment dated 03/02/2011 based on judgment in L.A.A.No.673/2010 at Rs.10 lakhs per Are. In LAA.No.31/2010, by judgment dated 04/02/2011 and relying upon the judgment in L.A.A.No. 1145/2010 and connected cases, land value was refixed at Rs.13,30,743/- per Are. Similarly, by common judgment dated 07/06/2011 the land value had been refixed in L.A.A.Nos.224/2009, 717/2009, 1008/2009, 310/2010, 904/2010, 484/2010 and 257/2009 at Rs.9 lakhs per Are based on the judgment in L.A.A.Nos.1145/2010 and connected cases. In L.A.A. Nos.690/2010 and 732/2010, the land value was refixed at Rs.9,50,000/- per Are. In L.A.A.No.184/2009, by judgment dated 09/06/2011, this Court relied upon the L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 4 judgment in L.A.A.Nos. 717/2009 and 1008/09, refixed the market value of land at Rs.9 lakhs per Are. In L.A.A.No.1119/2009, by judgment dated 10/02/2012, this Court, relying upon the judgment in L.A.A.No.717/2009 and connected cases, refixed the market value at Rs.9,00,000/- per Are. 4. The claimants had taken up the matter before the Apex Court in a batch of Civil Appeals and the Apex Court, by its judgment dated 17/02/2016, remitted the matter back to this Court for fresh consideration. By remitting the matter back, the Apex Court expressed a doubt in regard to judgment to be followed in fixing the land value. This court had relied upon the judgment in LAA No.673/2010, whereas the claimants relied upon the judgment in LAA No.867/2008. In L.A.A No.867/2008, the Court had fixed the land value at Rs.14 lakhs and in L.A.A.No.673/2010 the land value was fixed at Rs.10 lakhs per Are. In both the cases, the acquisition was for widening of Bakery- Palayam- Airport road for TRIDA. It was observed that the judgment does not indicate the reasons as to why the land acquired for the purpose of acquisition for L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 5 expansion/development of the International Airport was understood to be akin to the land acquired for the purpose of widening of Bakery-Palayam-Airport road for TRIDA. In the absence of any material, the Apex Court was not in a position to consider whether the land acquired for the purpose of the two acquisitions were similar in order to scrutinize the correctness of the same, as those acquisitions related to widening of BakeryPalayam-Airport road and no reasons were stated by the High Court to rely upon the judgment in L.A.A No.673/2010. It is, in the said circumstances, the judgment was set aside and the matter was remitted back to this Court for fresh consideration. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the question to be considered is whether this Court was justified in following the judgment in L.A.A.No.673/2010 or L.A.A.No.867/2008. It is argued that none of these judgments will have application with reference to fixation of land value as there is no evidence to show that the land covered by any of these cases are comparable to the land under acquisition. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for 6 L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases the claimants submitted that the property covered by the judgment in L.A.A.No.867/2008 is situated on the side of ChakkaPettah road which was acquired for widening of Chakka junction road. The distance from the aforesaid property to the disputed property is less than 500 metres. Similarly, in L.A.A.No.605/2010, which arose from the judgment in LAR No.318/2005, this Court fixed the land value at Rs.14,50,000/- per Are and the properties included in LAA No.867/2008 and LAA No.605/2010 are adjacent properties. The property covered by L.A.A.No.673/2010, which arose from LAR No.94/2005 was owned by one Mr.Sharlet and was included in Survey No.1833/13 of Pettah village near Kochuthoppu fishing area which is far away from the lands involved in the batch of cases. Therefore, ideally this Court should rely upon the judgment in L.A.A.No.867/2008 in comparison with the judgment in L.A.A.No.673/2010. It is further argued that, in LAA No.1973/2008, where Section 4(1) notification was published on 23/11/2003, this Court fixed the land value at Rs.14 lakhs per Are. The land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in LAA No.867/2008 was Rs.2,16,886/-. It is, L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 7 therefore, stated that the land value in the area has been increasing over a period of time and therefore the Sub Court was justified in fixing the land value at Rs.14 lakhs per Are placing reliance upon LAA No.867/2008. 7. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in **ONGC v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel,** _[(2008) 14 SCC 745]_ **,** wherein the Apex Court while considering the manner in which land acquisition references are to be answered by fixing the market value, held at Paragraphs 13 to 16 and 18 as under: _“13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors: situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market_ 8 L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases _price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties._ _14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same._ 9 L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases _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 acquisitions), 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 precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to 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 of 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 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_ L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 10 ## _standard of increase._ _16. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions in future, say of the years 1994-1995 or 1995-1996 are taken as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per annum. How far is this safe? One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for_ 11 L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases _a residential/commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development and improvement in the infrastructure/amenities/ facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands will become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on account of the proposed residential/ commercial/industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the annual increase in market value was around 10% per annum before the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/proposed development. Therefore, if the percentage to be added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a market value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard increase becomes unreliable. Courts should, therefore, avoid determination of market value with reference_ L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 12 _to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may.xxxxxxx_ ## _**Whether the increase should be at a**_ ## _**cumulative rate or a flat rate?**_ _**18.** The increase in market value is calculated with reference to the market value during the immediate preceding year. When market value is sought to be ascertained with reference to a transaction which took place some years before the acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the year to year increase. As the percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous year’s market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. xxxxx”_ 8. The manner in which the market value of the lands are to be fixed with reference to acquisition under the LA Act is well settled. Normally, Courts rely upon comparable sale methods which relates to bona fide transaction between willing seller and willing buyer. In such circumstances, the proximity of the L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 13 property from the acquired land, the location, the nature and lie, the time gap between the date of notification and the date of document relied are all relevant. 9. L.A.A.No.673/2010 has been filed against the judgment in L.A.R.No.94/2005 which relates to a notification published Under Section 4(1) of the LA Act on 25/06/2004. The Sub Court decided a batch of cases as per common judgment dated 08/01/2009 and L.A.R No.94/2005 was one among the cases. Judgment in the said batch of cases would indicate that all the properties were situated in Pettah village coming under different survey numbers. The claimants relied upon the judgment in another L.A.R.No.115/2005 in which land value was fixed at Rs.16,54,307/- per Are. Court observed that the document relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer was situated at Kadakamppaly village which are mostly low level lands which do not have the amenities which are available in the Pettah village. It was noticed that the acquired properties were abutting an arterial road leading from the heart of the Thiruvananthapuram city to the International Airport. It is further observed that Ext.A1 L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 14 judgment (L.A.R.No.115/2005) can be relied upon only to a certain extent taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of the property acquired from the claimants. It was also found that the acquired land was suitable for residential and commercial purpose, but there is no evidence to prove that the acquired land would fetch a market value higher than the land value in L.A.R.No.115/2005 and relying upon Ext.A1 judgment, the value of land had been fixed at Rs.10 lakhs per Are. In the judgment in L.A.A.No.673/2010, this Court, having taken note of the fact that in other cases, the value had been fixed at Rs.14 lakhs and even Rs.24 lakhs, held that there is no necessity to interfere with the judgment of the Reference Court. It is apparent that either the Subordinate Judge or this Court in L.A.A.No.673/2010 had not relied upon any material to prove the comparability of property covered by Ext.A1 (L.A.R.No.115/2005) and the acquired land. In other words, a rough figure has been fixed in the said case. 10. L.A.A.No.867/2008, arises from the judgment of the Sub Court in L.A.R.No.317/2005. The said judgment relates to L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 15 acquisition of land as per Section 4(1) notification dated 23/11/2003, where the LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,16,866/per Are which was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.15,00,000/- per Are. L.A.R.No.317/2005 has been decided by judgment dated 23/08/2007 along with two other cases LAR No.179/2005 and 318/2005. Before the Sub Court, the claimants only relied upon Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R No.219/1998. In Ext.A1 (L.A.R.No.219/1998), the land value fixed by the LAO was Rs.5,47,209/- which was enhanced to Rs.17,31,306/-. It was stated that the property covered by Ext.A1 (L.A.R.No.219/1998) is situated near “overbridge”. It was further observed that the property covered by L.A.R.No.179/2005 is situated at Pattoor which is also an equally important place compared to Over bridge in Thiruvananthapuram City and therefore the Court fixed the land value in L.A.R.No.179/2005 at Rs.17,31,306/- and with reference to the properties in L.A.R.No.317/2005 and 318/2005, which are less important areas, fixed the land value at Rs.15,00,000/- per Are. It could therefore be seen that the land value was not fixed based on any comparable sale method but L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 16 relying upon an earlier judgment in L.A.R.No.219/1998 (Ext.A1). Before the Sub Court, other than examining the claimant in L.A.R.No.317/2005, no other evidence was forthcoming to prove the comparability of the land covered by Ext.A1 with that of acquired land. The Sub Court compared the judgment in L.A.R.No.219/1998 (Ext.A1), the property situated at Overbridge to the property at Pattoor junction where the property in L.A.R.No.317/2005 was situated. This finding, according to us, is without any basis. To our knowledge, Overbridge junction is situated in the heart of Thiruvananthapuram city which is the most important commercial centre and very near to Bus Station, Railway station, commercial establishments, Theatres, Hotels, Chalai market, the famous Padmanabha Swamy Temple etc. Pattoor junction or even Pettah is not at all comparable with the land situated at Overbridge and there is no basis for such a comparison. Further, there was no evidence for such comparison. In the judgment in L.A.A.No.867/2008, this Court had clearly observed that the property covered by Ext.A1 judgment is situated near overbridge, very near to Thampanoor in L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 17 Thiruvananthapuram and the finding that it was having equal importance to the property involved in the appeal, was rejected. There is a clear finding that the land involved in the appeal is less important than the land involved in Ext.A1 judgment. Hence the Court fixed the land value at Rs.14 lakhs instead of 15 lakhs, which is only a rough estimate and not based on any material. 11. It could be seen that in either of these cases, the Court had not adopted comparable sale method, whereas the Court had relied upon the earlier judgments of the same Court with reference to other acquisitions, even without any material to prove the comparability. 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the judgment in L.A.A.No.867/2008 cannot be relied as the basis for valuing the land under acquisition. 13. In the aforesaid batch of cases, the claimants basically relied upon the judgments in earlier cases. In L.A.R.No.246/2007 and connected cases, one of the claimants was examined as AW1. Claimants produced Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the judgment in L.A.R.No.62/2006 with reference to the properties acquired from L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 18 Pettah village. Ext.A2 is the judgment in L.A.R No.21/2006 which also related to the property acquired from Pettah village. Ext.A3 is the judgment in L.A.R.No.179/2005 and connected cases which relates to the land acquired from Vanchiyoor village. The Court below relied upon Ext.A2, the judgment in L.A.R.No.21/2006 and fixed the market value. In another batch of cases starting from L.A.R.No.241/2007 also, the Court below relied upon L.A.R.No.21/2006; and the other documents relied upon were rejected. In L.A.R.No.655/2008 and connected cases, Court below relied upon the judgment in L.A.R.No.356/2007 and connected cases and fixed the land value. That was also a case relating to Pettah village. In yet another batch of cases involving L.A.R.No.664/2008 and connected cases also, the Court below relied upon Ext.A5 judgment in L.A.R.No. 356/2007 and connected cases. Apparently, in these cases, no attempt had been made to prove the comparability of the lands involved in the judgments which had been relied upon with reference to the acquired property. The Court below also had not relied upon any such material. The only factor the Court below had considered was L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 19 that the property acquired and the property involved in the relied upon judgments are situated in Pettah village. We do not think that the aforesaid view of the Court below is acceptable in any manner. In a place like State of Kerala, with reference to lands coming within the same village, the value would be different depending upon various factors. The property involved in this acquisition is scattered at Chakkai and Vayyamoola to Vallakkadavu. The entire alignment was divided into various blocks for convenience. The area acquired in Chakkai which is the subject matter in issue has been divided into two blocks. Block No.1, which is the subject matter in the present proceedings, is situated on the southern side of Pettah-Shangumugham road commencing from the western side of Parvathi Puthanar stretching upto Care Home at KSEB junction. 14. The first question would be whether the judgment of the Court below can be sustained. As already stated, the Reference Court relied upon the land value in L.A.R No.21/2006 and L.A.R No.356/2007 on the ground that the property is situated in Pettah village. What is the proximity of these lands with 20 L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases reference to the acquired property, what are the similarities the lands covered by these judgments have with reference to the acquired property is not discernible either from the judgments or from any other material relied upon. Though certain reports of the Advocate Commissioners were produced in L.A.R No.655/2008 and connected cases, the Commissions were not taken in the Land Acquisition Reference cases, but in separate suits that were filed by the claimants before the Reference. The Advocate Commissioners were not examined before the Reference Court. That apart, the purpose of deputing the Advocate Commissioners was to assess the value of buildings with the help of the Expert Engineer. Therefore, unless the lands acquired in the judgments relied upon is in the close proximity to the acquired land, it is totally unsafe to rely upon the said judgments in order to fix the land value in these cases. Therefore, placing reliance upon the judgments aforesaid, without any material to prove the comparability of such lands, was erroneous and not justifiable. 15. This Court, while deciding L.A.A.No.673/2010 also, did not appreciate the fact that the said judgments can be relied L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 21 upon and in the absence of any material, a formula was worked out to fix the market value of land under acquisition. 16. It is also relevant to note that other than producing the basic documents, the State has not adduced any evidence either to prove the document which was the basis for valuing the land under acquisition and no attempt has been made to adduce evidence to prove the comparability of the acquired land with the lands covered by the basic document. The property covered by the basic document is situated in a different village. Therefore, in order to value the land under acquisition, the only option available is to make a rough estimate of the value of the land based on the available materials. 17. As already indicated, judgment in L.A.A.No.867/2008 which arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.317/2005 cannot be relied upon for the reasons already stated. The same is the situation with reference to judgment in L.A.A No.605/2010 which arises from the judgment in L.A.R No.318/2005. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in L.A.A No.1973/2008 which was an appeal against L.A.R No.21/2006 where the land L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 22 value was fixed at Rs.14 lakhs per Are. We have already held that the judgment in L.A.R.No.21/2006 cannot be relied upon to fix the market value of the land. 18. In view of the fact that this Court had already fixed the value of land for different categories at different rates, following the judgment in L.A.A No.673/2010, and after making appropriate deductions, taking into account the fact that there is no basis for comparing the acquired land with that of the land involved in L.A.A No.673/2010, keeping in mind the difference in the nature of land, it will be appropriate to fix the land value at the rate fixed by this Court earlier. 19. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed as under: i) In L.A.A No.31/2010 arising from L.A.R No.247/2007, land value is fixed at Rs.13,30,743/- per Are. ii) In L.A.A No. 690/2010 arising from L.A.R No.664/2008, land value is fixed at Rs.9,50,000/- per Are. iii) In LA.A No.732/2010 arising from L.A.R No.656/2008 land value is fixed at Rs.9,50,000/- per Are. iv) In L.A.A No.1145/2010 arising from L.A.R No.659/2010, L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 23 land value is fixed at Rs.10 lakhs per Are. v) Cross Objection No.110/2010 in L.A.A No.1145/2010 is dismissed. vi) In L.A.A.No.566/2010 arising from L.A.R No.655/2010 land value is fixed at Rs.10 lakhs per Are. vii) In L.A.A No.904/2010 arising from L.A.R No.661/2008, land value is fixed at Rs.9 lakhs per Are. viii) In L.A.A No.484/2010 arising from L.A.R No.660/2008, land value is fixed at Rs.9 lakhs per Are. ix) In L.A.A No.310/2010 arising from L.A.R No.657/2008, land value is fixed at Rs.9 lakhs per Are. x) In L.A.A No.717/2009 arising from L.A.R No.250/2007, land value is fixed at Rs.9 lakhs per Are. xi) In L.A.A No.1119/2009 arising from L.A.R No.298/2007, land value is fixed at Rs.9 lakhs per Are. xii) In L.A.A No.184/2009 arising from L.A.R No.9/2008, land value is fixed at Rs.9 lakhs per Are. xiii) In L.A.A No.257/2009 arising from L.A.R No.251/2007, land value is fixed at Rs.9 lakhs per Are. L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 24 xiv) In L.A.A No.1008/2009 arising from L.A.R No.241/2007, land value is fixed at Rs.9 lakhs per Are. xv) In L.A.A No.224/2009 arising from L.A.R No.246/2007, land value is fixed at Rs.9 lakhs per Are. xvi) In L.A.A No.872/2009 arising from L.A.R.No.265/2007, land value is fixed at Rs.10 lakhs per Are. 20. The claimants shall be entitled for the aforesaid land value after deducting the amount already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In all other respects, the decree shall stand confirmed and the claimants shall be entitled for statutory benefits and interest, as decreed by the Court below. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed. ## (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** (sd/-) ## **(ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)** jsr True Copy P.S to Judge L.A.Appeal No.184/2009 & conn.cases 25