LA.App..No.235 OF 2019, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** **LA.App..No.235 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN IN LAR 89/2014 DATED 28-10-2017 OF SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI,PAINAVU,KUYILIMALA.** - **2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS) DIVISION, PAINAVU P.O.,IDUKKI.** **BY SR.GP – SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:** - **1 SANTHAMMA SASIDHARAN, W/O.SASIDHARAN,MUNDACKAL (H), ARIKUZHA,MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA,PIN-685 608.** - **2 SARANYA, D/O.LATE SASIDHARAN, MUNDACKAL (H),ARIKUZHA, MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685 608.** - **3 SHARI, D/O.LATE SASIDHARAN,MUNDACKAL (H), ARIKUZHA,MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685 608.** ## **LA.App..No.235 OF 2019** **==> picture [18 x 6] intentionally omitted <==** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.235 OF 2019** ..3.. ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2017 of Sub Court, Thodupuzha in L.A.R.No.89 of 2014. An extent of 0.0307 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.245/14 (Block No.11) of Manakkadu Village of Thodupuzha Taluk owned by the respondents/claimants was acquired for the purpose of widening Thodupuzha-Ramamangalam Road. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is one dated 03.03.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs.3,48,904/-, vide award No.24/2013 dated 01.06.2013 in L.A.C.No.85/12, fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.85,255/- per Are. For fixing compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands into five categories Group 1A, Group 1B, Group 2A, Group 2B and Group 3. The land in the instant case is classified in Group 1A. 2. The reference court enhanced and re-fixed the land value of Group 1A land as **Rs.2,83,547/-** per Are. Feeling **LA.App..No.235 OF 2019** **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** aggrieved by the enhancement of land value, the appellants, who are the respondents before reference court, are before this Court in this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader who appears for the appellants. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent/claimant. 4. By the judgment dated 09.07.2019 in L.A.A.No.119 of 2017 and connected cases, this Court remanded the appeals for fresh disposal to the reference court. Paragraphs 4 and 5 and the operative portion of the said judgment read thus: “4. The case set out by the claimants in the proceedings was that the land value of the acquired lands at the time of notification was about Rs.4,00,000/- per cent. In support of the claim for enhanced land value sought in the proceedings, the claimants produced mainly four documents. Among the documents, Ext.A1 is the certified copy of a sale deed executed on 12.04.2012 in respect of a land in the vicinity of the acquired lands. The land value shown in Ext.A1 would work out to be Rs.4,13,223/- per Are. Ext.A2 is the copy of an order issued by the Government during the year 2013 approving the land value fixed for negotiated purchase of a few lands situated ..5.. ## **LA.App..No.235 OF 2019** at Arakuzha Village for the development of Ernakulam - Thekkady Highway. The land value approved by the Government in terms of the said document for negotiated purchase is Rs.3,00,000/- per cent. Exts.A3 and A4 are decisions of this court in two land acquisition appeals in respect of lands acquired for a different purpose. In addition, the claimants rely on the oral evidence tendered in the matters which would give an idea about the locational importance of the acquired lands. The reference court took the view that Ext.A2 cannot be the basis at all for the land value fixation to be made in these matters as the same only indicates the land value agreed to be given on negotiated purchase basis. I am unable to find fault with the reference court for having taken the said view also for the reasons, namely, that the same is a post notification document; that the lands involved in the said document are lands situated in a different village and that the beneficiaries of the said document would not be entitled to any of the statutory benefits provided for under the Act as in the case of the claimants in the instant case. The reference court did not place reliance on Exts A3 and A4 decisions also, as the lands involved in the said cases which were subject matter of another acquisition are lands situated about 3 km away from the acquired lands within Thodupuzha muncipal limits close to Thodupuzha town. I am unable to find fault with the reference court for having taken the said view. It is in the circumstances, it is seen that the reference court has fixed the land value of the acquired lands based on Ext.A1 sale deed. It was found by ..6.. ## **LA.App..No.235 OF 2019** the reference court that the land covered by the said document is not one abutting the road for the widening of which the lands involved in these matters were acquired. It was also found by the reference court that the land covered by the said document is situated about 1 km. inside the said road and therefore, it can only be regarded as an inferior land when compared to the acquired lands which are lands abutting the road for the widening of which they were acquired. Since Ext.A1 was a post notification document, the reference court deducted 15% of the value shown in the document to arrive at its value at the time of the notification of the case on hand and fixed the land value for the acquired lands by adding 5% of the same for the locational importance and junction proximity. It is in the aforesaid manner that the reference court has fixed the land value for the acquired lands in terms of the judgements impugned in these matters. 5. No doubt, the acquired lands are lands situated on the side of the road for the widening of which they were acquired. Further, the acquired lands are lands situated in and around Alappara junction. The materials on record indicate that the area is a commercial one and there are various commercial establishments and other institutions of public importance in and around the acquired lands. At the same time, the approach made by the reference court cannot be accepted. First of all, as held consistently by the Apex Court in very many cases, a post notification document cannot be accepted at all for the purpose of fixing the land value for the acquired lands (See **Maya** **LA.App..No.235 OF 2019** ..7.. ## **Devi (D) Through LRs. and Ors. v. State of Haryana** **and Anr.** [AIR 2018 SC 645]). Further, as noted, it has come out that the land covered by Ext.A1 is a land situated about a kilometer inside the road for the improvement of which the lands involved in these matters have been acquired. Naturally, and in all probability, when the nearby public road is widened and improved, there will be a spurt in the value of the nearby lands also. This is one of the reasons for holding that the sale value shown in post notification documents cannot be looked into for fixing the land value of the lands acquired. If Ext.A1 document is excluded, there is nothing on record except the locational importance of the acquired lands to fix the land value of the acquired lands. The evidence let in by the parties to establish locational importance is only as regards the proximity of the acquired lands to commercial establishments and institutions of public importance. Land value cannot be fixed solely based on such evidence as the value of the lands in the proximity of identical/similar commercial establishments and institutions of public importance will not be same everywhere. At the same time, the materials indicate that the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low in the context of the acquisition made pursuant to a notification issued in the year 2010. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to remit the matters for fresh disposal to the reference court. In the result, the land acquisition appeals are allowed and the matters are remitted for fresh disposal to the ## **LA.App..No.235 OF 2019** **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** reference court. All the interlocutory applications in the appeals are closed.” 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, this Court find that, in view of the judgment of this Court dated 09.07.2019 in L.A.A.No.119 of 2017 and connected cases, this appeal has to be allowed, by remitting the matter for fresh disposal to the reference court. Accordingly this appeal is allowed, thereby remitting L.A.R.No.89 of 2014 to the reference court for fresh disposal, taking note of the directions contained in the judgment dated 09.07.2019 in L.A.A.No.119 of 2017 and connected cases. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** kkj