LA.App..No.647 OF 2014 & CONN. CASES

**LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 1** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940** **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN LAR 98/2010 DATED 31-03-2014 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, AGED 75 YEARS, THERUVIL (H), KEEZH THADDIYOOR, LALAM, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE THOMAS (PALA)** **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI- 685 556. 2 THE DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2014, LA.App..637/2014, LA.App..693/2014, LA.App..889/2014, LA.App..36/2015, LA.App..60/2015, LA.App..493/2015(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940** **LA.App..No.636 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN LAR 90/2010 DATED 27-03-2014 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **BABU AGED 71 YEARS S/O.JOHN, VAYATTATTIL PUTHENPURAYIL (H), KEEZHEPURAPPUZHA, PURAPPUZHA** **BY ADV. SRI.JOSE THOMAS (PALA)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI-685 586. 2 THE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHPURAM – 695 001. SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App..637/2014, LA.App..647/2014, LA.App..693/2014, LA.App..889/2014, LA.App..36/2015, LA.App..60/2015, LA.App..493/2015(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 3** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940** **LA.App..No.637 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN LAR 94/2010 DATED 27-03-2014 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **THOMAS** **AGED 68 YEARS S/O.JOHN, VAYATTATTIL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KEEZHEPURAPPUZHA, PURAPPUZHA.** **BY ADV. SRI.JOSE THOMAS (PALA)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI - 685 586.** **2 THE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** ## **SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2014, LA.App..647/2014, LA.App..693/2014, LA.App..889/2014, LA.App..36/2015, LA.App..60/2015, LA.App..493/2015(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 4** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940** **LA.App..No.693 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 2/2011 DATED 31-03-2014 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **JAIMOL SIMON W/O. BIJU SIMON, ERIKATTU HOUSE, AREEKARA, UZHAVOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BABU SRI.BABU SHANKAR SMT.N.SUDHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2014, LA.App..637/2014, LA.App..647/2014, LA.App..889/2014, LA.App..36/2015, LA.App..60/2015, LA.App..493/2015(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES** **5** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940** **LA.App..No.889 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 93/2010 DATED 31-03-2014 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **REENA W/O.THANKACHAN, THANDUMPURATH HOUSE, KEEZH, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BABU SRI.BABU SHANKAR SRI.K.S.GOPI SMT.N.SUDHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,IDUKKI, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685 586.** **2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM – 695 001.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2014, LA.App..637/2014, LA.App..647/2014, LA.App..693/2014, LA.App..36/2015, LA.App..60/2015, LA.App..493/2015(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 6** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940** ## **LA.App..No.36 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 95/2010 DATED 31-03-2014 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:** - **1 THANKAMMA, W/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, THANDUMPURATHU HOUSE, KEEZHU, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THDUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** - **2 T.S. SUJITH,S/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, THANDUMPURATHU HOUSE, KEEZHU, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THDUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **3 SUNUMOL,D/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, THANDUMPURATHU HOUSE, KEEZHU, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THDUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BABU SRI.BABU SHANKAR SRI.K.S.GOPI SMT.N.SUDHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PAINAVU.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 603.** **2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.** ## **SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2014, LA.App..637/2014, LA.App..647/2014, LA.App..693/2014, LA.App..889/2014, LA.App..60/2015, LA.App..493/2015(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 7** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940** ## **LA.App..No.60 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 92/2010 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:** - **1 GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O KUTTAN NAIR, KAKKARAPPILLIL HOUSE, KEEZHU, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** - **2 LEELA, W/O GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KAKKARAPPILLIL HOUSE, KEEZHU, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** - **3 SUMA, D/O GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KAKKARAPPILLIL HOUSE, KEEZHU, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** - **4 MAYA, D/O GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KAKKARAPPILLIL HOUSE, KEEZHU, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BABU SRI.BABU SHANKAR SRI.K.S.GOPI SMT.N.SUDHA SRI.K.V.WINSTON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PAINAVU.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 586.** **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 8** **2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2014, LA.App..637/2014, LA.App..647/2014, LA.App..693/2014, LA.App..889/2014, LA.App..36/2015, LA.App..493/2015(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES** **9** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940** **LA.App..No.493 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 97/2010 DATED 31-03-2014 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **THANKACHAN S/O.KUTTAN, THANDUMPURATHU HOUSE, KEEZH, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BABU SRI.BABU SHANKAR SRI.K.S.GOPI SMT.N.SUDHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 603. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** ## **SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2014, LA.App..637/2014, LA.App..647/2014, LA.App..693/2014, LA.App..889/2014, LA.App..36/2015, LA.App..60/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **10** **& CONN. CASES** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **C.K.Abdul Rehim,J.** The above appeals are filed by the claimants in the respective reference cases challenging judgments of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. Since the properties acquired in all these cases are situated in Purappuzha Village and since the acquisition was for the very same purpose of construction of the Government Polytechnic at Purappuzha Village; and since the acquisition was effected through the very same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act, we have considered the above appeals together and disposed of them through this common judgment. 2. LAA Nos.636/2014 and 637/2014 arise out of a common judgment passed by the Sub Court in L.A.R.90/2010 and 94/2010, dated 27.3.2014. L.A.A Nos.889/2014, 36/2015 and 493/2015 arise out of another common judgment in L.A.R Nos.93/2010, 95/2010 and 97/2010, dated **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 11** 31.3.2014. LAA No.647/2014 arise out of the judgment in L.A.R No.98/2010, dated 31.3.2014. L.A.A No.693/2014 arise out of the judgment in L.A.R No.2/2011, dated 31.3.2014. L.A.A No.60/2015 arise out of a common judgment passed in L.A.R No.92/2010 and LAR No.91/2010, dated 28.3.2014. It is pointed out that appeal filed by the claimant against the judgment in LAR No.91/2010 is not ripe for final hearing, because the application filed seeking permission to file the appeal as indigent person is still pending consideration before this court. Hence the said case is not considered along with these cases. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer had categorized the acquired properties in all these cases into three different categories. Category No.1 is described as dry land having direct access to the tar road. Category No.II is described as dry land having access only to sub roads. Category No.III is described as dry land having access only to pathways. The land value awarded by the LAO for properties included under category No.1 is Rs.9590/- per Are, for category No.II is Rs.7675/- per Are and for category No.III is Rs.6140/- per Are. With respect to properties included in **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 12** category No.III, the reference court found that, those properties can be considered as property having access to the sub road. For arriving at such a conclusion the reference court had relied upon Ext.A14 judgment, which is marked in the common judgment in LAR Nos.90/2010 and 94/2010. Ext.P14 is a judgment passed in LAR Nos.51/2002 and 52/2002. The acquired properties in those cases are situated immediately adjacent to the properties acquired in the present cases. It is pointed out that the properties acquired in LAR No.51/2002 and 52/2002 were treated alike as having road access, by relying on Ext.A15 judgment in L.A.A No.701/2005 of this Court, which was also marked in the said common judgment. It is found that the properties which are classified under category No.III is lying as compact plot along with other acquired properties of the very same family members, which are having direct access to the sub road. Therefore, the reference court considered the acquired properties in all these cases as property having access to sub roads connecting to the PWD road situated in the area, namely Karimkunnam-Purapuzha road. Since the respondent/State has not challenged the above said finding, it is not necessary for this court to look into **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **13** **& CONN. CASES** correctness of such a finding in these appeals. 4. The appellant in L.A.A No.647/2014, arising out of the judgment in L.A.R No.98/2010, raised a contention that, the reference court missed to take note of the fact that the property involved in the said case was included by the LAO in category No.I, as property having direct access to the PWD road (Karimkunnam-Purapuzha road). It is contended that the inclusion of the property in the common category adopted by the reference court without considering the above said special feature, was patently illegal and erroneous. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant in LAA No.647/2014 had drawn our attention to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, marked in the said case as Exts.X1 and X1(a). He has also drawn out attention to the testimony of the Advocate Commissioner who was examined as AW4 in that case. So also, attention was drawn to the testimony of AW1, who is the power of attorney holder of the claimant. It is evident from the materials available on record that the acquired property in the said case is only a portion of a larger extent, owned by the claimant. It has come out in evidence that the total property was **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 14** having frontage to the PWD road, apart from accessibility for the acquired portion through a separate road created, which is having width of 6 metres. When the acquired property and the remaining unacquired property existed as a compact plot with frontage to the PWD road it has to be considered that the acquired portion was having frontage to the PWD road. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is justification in the categorization made by the Land Acquisition Officer, including the acquired property in category No.1. We have to accept the contention raised in this regard and the findings of the reference court to the extent of including the property in the said case as property having access only to the sub road, need to be reversed. 5. With respect to question regarding fixation of the land value, it is evident that the exemplars relied upon by the claimants in all these cases are very same documents. Learned counsel appearing for all the appellants had conceded before this court that the best exemplar produced in evidence in all the cases is a sale deed registered as Document No.408/2007 of the Sub Registrar Office, Thodupuzha. Evidently the said document relates to the sale of 2 cents of property situated at Purappuzha **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 15** junction at a distance of about 500 mtrs from the acquired property. The date of execution of the sale deed was on 31.1.2007. The sale consideration reflected in the said document is Rs.1,50,000/- per cent. Referring to Exts.X1 and X1(a), Commission report and sketch, the court below had arrived at a conclusion that the property conveyed through this said document and the acquired properties in these cases are similar in nature and similarly situated. Therefore the reference court found that refixation of land value with respect to the acquired properties in these cases can be made relying upon the said document, which is the highest among the exemplars produced on behalf of the claimants. But the court below observed that, the property conveyed through the said document is only a small parcel of land situated at a prime location. Having considered the fact that the acquired properties are larger in extent, it was held that 40% reduction in the value need to be applied. So also it was found that the property covered under the said document is situated at an important locality at Purappuzha Junction, whereas the acquired properties are situated away from the Junction, approximately at 250 Metres away from the PWD road. ## **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 16** Therefore the court below found that another deduction at the rate of 40% need to be made for the factor of difference in proximity of the location. Accordingly by effecting a cumulative deduction of 80% from the value of Rs.1,50,000/- per cent covered under the above said document, the land value was fixed at Rs.30,000/-per cent which is equivalent to Rs.74,130/- per Are. 6. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is mainly that, the deduction at 80% made from the value reflected in the best exemplar, is illegal and unsustainable. The appellants have strongly assailed the method followed for effecting a cumulative deduction. It is contended that, even if any deduction ought to have been made, the same should not have been made with cumulative effect. In this regard learned counsel for the appellants had cited a decision of the hon'ble supreme Court in **Chandrasekhar and Others v. Land Acquisition Officer and another [AIR 2012 SC 446].** It is held therein that, when the quantum of deduction to be made for determining the compensation should be divided into two components; viz: first for keeping aside space for providing development infrastructure **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **17** **& CONN. CASES** and second as deduction for developmental expenditure, the two components under head of development put together should not exceed upper bench mark of 67%. Further it is held that the cumulative of all the deductions including the deductions and other heads should not exceed the upper bench mark of 75%. 7. Based on the dictum contained in the decision cited above, it is contended that, the deductions made as 40% each under the heads of largeness of extent and difference in proximity of location, cannot be sustained. Counsel appearing in some other appeals have pointed out that, the extent of land acquired in some of the cases is varied from 10 cents onwards. Therefore it is contended that the largeness in extent, when compared to the exemplar relied upon, is greater only in few cases. It is further contended that, the relied upon exemplar is only 2 cents of property situated in Purappuzha Junction with direct frontage to the PWD road. The value of which ought to have been equated with due deductions, for fixing the value of the property included in category No.I, which is having frontage to the PWD road. We find force in the contentions mentioned as above. We are of the opinion that the cumulative deduction of **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 18** 80% made from the value of the exemplar relied upon, is highly excessive and unreasonable. Considering the fact that the difference in the extent of land is negligible in some of the cases, we are of the opinion that 40% deduction effected on the count of largeness in extent, cannot be sustained. On a reasonable estimation, we observe that 30% reduction on that count will be reasonable and justifiable. So also it has come out in evidence that the acquired properties are situated only at a distance of 500 Metres from the property covered under document No. 408/2007. Therefore the reduction of another 40% on the count of proximity of the location, is also excessive and unreasonable. We are of the opinion that 25% deduction for the said reason would be reasonable and acceptable. Hence we are of the opinion that a total deduction of 55% (cumulative deduction) can be made from the value reflected in the document relied upon as the best exemplar. It means that the land value of the acquired properties included in category No.1 can be refixed at 45% less the value reflected in document No.408/2007. Accordingly we are of the view that the land value in LAA No. 647/2014 (LAR No.98/2010) can be refixed at 45% of Rs.1,50,000/- per cent, **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES** **19** which will work out to Rs.67,500/- per cent. 8. With respect to acquired properties covered under other cases, except LAA No. 647/2014, there is a difference in category. It is evident that those properties are having access only to sub roads. Therefore a reduction in the land value is inevitable. The LAO while awarding compensation had fixed the land value between category Nos. I & II at a difference of 20%. Therefore we are of the opinion that the land value with respect to all other cases except LAA No. 647/2014 can be fixed by deducting 20% of the value fixed for category No.I, which will work out to Rs.54,000/-per cent (80% of Rs.67,500/-). Based on refixation of the category as mentioned above, land value in LAA No.647/2014 (LAR 98/2010) can be refixed at Rs.67,500/- per cent, which is equivalent to Rs.1,66,792/- per Are. The land value in all other cases is refixed at Rs.54,000/- per cent which is equivalent to Rs.1,33,434/-per Are. 9. In L.A.A.No.636/2014 and 637/2014 (LAR No. 90/2010 & 94/2010) the reference court had limited the compensation at Rs.60,000/- per Are, for the reason that the claim made before the LAO was limited to that amount. Learned counsel for the **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 20** appellants had pointed out a decision of this court in **Yamuna v. Special Tahsildar[2007(3)KLT 581]** wherein it was held that, a claimant is entitled to claim land value before the reference court in excess of what he claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer; and the court is bound to independently investigate the claim based on material on record. The above dictum was laid by referring to the amended provision contained in Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. The principle in this regard has been reiterated in the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana [ (2016)4 SCC 544]** . It is held that, prior to the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount of compensation which could be awarded by the court was limited to the amount claimed by the applicant. But now Section 25 as amended stipulates that the amount of compensation awarded by the court is not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector. It was observed that, the cap put on the maximum, having been expressly omitted, the cap that is put is only on the minimum. It was clarified that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It was reminded that the court has a duty to **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 21** award just and fair compensation taking into consideration of the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner. Considering the principle remaining settled as above, this court is of the view that the restriction imposed by the reference court limiting the compensation in LAR 90/2010 & 94/2010 is liable to be set aside. 10. We take note of the fact that in some of the above cases, the amount claimed in the appeals are less than the land value fixed by this court as above. In the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chandrashekhar & Others v. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer [ (2009)14 SCC 441]** it is held that, once the appellants were held entitled to enhanced compensation, they could not be denied the same on such technical grounds and opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit court fee. Following the above said guidelines, we think it appropriate to permit the appellants to remit the deficit court fee if any, in tune with the amount of compensation determined hereinabove, within a period of 15 days from today. It is to be noted further that, in some of the cases the appellants were permitted to sue the appeal as ## **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **& CONN. CASES 22** 'informa pauperis'. In such cases, the additional court fee if any payable shall be specifically mentioned in the decree to be drawn. In the result, the above appeals are hereby allowed in part, as follows: i) LAA No. 647/2014 is allowed to the extent of refixing the land value at the rate of Rs.67,500/- per cent, which is equivalent to Rs.1,66,792/- per Are. ii) LAA Nos.693/2014, 636/2014, 637/2014, 493/2015, 889/2014, 60/2015 and 36/2015 are allowed in part by refixing the land value at the rate of Rs.54,000/- per cent which is equivalent to Rs.1,33,434/- per Are. iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits due under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the refixed compensation, along with proportionate costs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ks./mpm ## SHIRCY V. JUDGE ## **LA.App..No.647 OF 2014** **==> picture [101 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **23**