Manju M Kumar v. State of Kerala (LA.A.No.626/2012 & 01/2014)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 15TH MAGHA, 1940** **LA.App..No. 626 of 2012** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-02-2012 IN LAR 16/2010 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **MANJU M KUMAR D/O.P.N.RAJAMANY, T.C.30/1724, KAILAS, CHAYAKKUDI ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, VANCHIYOOR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN SRI.T.SAPROO** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.** **2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TECHNO PARK, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 582.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T), SC,TECHNOPARK FOR R2 SMT.K.V.RASHMI SC TECHNOPARK FOR R2 SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN-SR. GP FOR R1** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..1/2014, THE COURT ON 04.02.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 01/2014 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 15TH MAGHA, 1940** **LA.App..No. 1 of 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 16/2010 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL DATED 29-02-2012** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT:** **1 MANJU.M.KUMAR D/O. P.N.RAJAMANY, T.C. 30/1724, "KAILAS", CHAYAKKUDI ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, VANCHIYOOR-695035. 2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TECHNOPARK, KAZHAKKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ADVOCATE M.VINCENT. 695 582** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN FOR R1 SMT.M.A.ZOHRA FOR R1 SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN FOR R1 SMT.K.V.RASHMI, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R2** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..626/2012, THE COURT ON 04.02.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 01/2014 ## **V.CHITAMBARESH &** ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.** ************************** L.A.A.Nos.626 of 2012 & 01 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 4th day of February, 2019 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **R.Narayana Pisharadi, J** These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Sub Court, Attingal in L.A.R.No.16 of 2010. 2. An extent of 13.40 Ares of land, in Pallippuram Village, owned by the appellant Manju.M.Kumar, was acquired for the development of Electronic Technology Park. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 05.12.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation by fixing the value of the land at Rs.75,824/- per Are. The reference court enhanced the compensation by refixing the value of the land at Rs.80,000/- per cent (Rs.1,97,000/- per L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 4 01/2014 Are). Dissatisfied with the award passed by the reference court, the claimant has filed the appeal L.A.A.No.626 of 2012. Aggrieved by the award passed, the State has filed the appeal L.A.A.No.1 of 2014. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned Government Pleader in both appeals. We have also perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the land acquired is situated in a locality having commercial importance and that the compensation awarded for the land is inadequate and it is not just and reasonable. Learned counsel would also contend that classification of the land owned by the claimant into Category No.9 by the Land Acquisition Officer was improper and that the land acquired should have been included in a better category. 5. Ext.C1 is the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner after inspecting the property acquired. Ext.C1 report does not reveal that the property acquired is situated in a locality having commercial importance. Institutions of any L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 5 01/2014 importance are situated only at a distance of three kilometres from the property acquired. True, the property acquired is situated near the National Highway. It does not mean that it is located in an area of commercial importance. 6. Ext.A1 is the only document produced by the claimant in support of her plea for enhancement of compensation for land. As per this document, on 10.04.2008, the Chief Executive Officer of Techno Park purchased 38 Ares of land for Rs.2,55,07,391/-. The land value as per this document comes to Rs.2,71,760/per cent. 7. The value of the land shown in Ext.A1 document cannot be accepted as the basis for fixation of the market value of the land acquired. There are two reasons. In the first place, the property covered by Ext.A1 document had been included in the same notification for acquisition but it was directly purchased by the requisitioning authority. The consideration paid as per this document would definitely include the other benefits which the seller of the land would have obtained on acquisition of the property by the government. L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 6 01/2014 Therefore, it is evident that Ext.A1 document does not reflect the real market value of the land in the locality. In the second place, the transaction as per Ext.A1 document, is a post notification transaction. The date of that transaction was 10.04.2008, one and a half years after the date of publication of the notification of acquisition. In **Maya Devi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2018 SC 645),** the Apex Court has categorically held that post notification transactions cannot be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value of the property acquired. In these circumstances, the reference court has rightly declined to act upon Ext.A1 document. 8. The land acquired in the instant case was included in Category No.9 by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned counsel for the claimant would contend that classification of the land by the Land Acquisition Officer is not proper and the land acquired should have been included in a better category. The plea in the memorandum of appeal is that the land acquired should have been included in Category No.3 instead of Category No.9. Even if the land is included in Category No.3, the L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 01/2014 7 compensation that could be paid would only be lesser than the amount granted by the reference court. 9. Ext.C1 report of the Advocate Commissioner shows that the land acquired is situated just behind another property which is lying adjacent to the National Highway. However, the land acquired has got no direct access from the National Highway. Ext.C1 report shows that there is a road starting from the National Highway and which reaches Pallippuram CRPF camp. The Advocate Commissioner has not reported that there is access to the land acquired from this road. On the other hand, the Commissioner has reported that the land acquired is situated on the southern side of a mud road which starts from the aforesaid tarred road. The Commissioner has further reported that this mud road is not clearly visible. The Commissioner has not prepared and filed any sketch showing the lie of the property. However, considering the lie of the property revealed from Ext.C1 report, the land acquired can be included in Category No.6, which would be slightly more advantageous to the claimant. L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 8 01/2014 10. Learned counsel for the claimant has brought to our notice copy of the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.823/2013 in support of the plea for further enhancement of compensation for land. We have perused this judgment. This judgment will not in any way help the claimant to get further enhancement of compensation. L.A.A.No.823/2013 relates to acquisition of land for the purpose of the Technology Park. But, the acquisition in that case was about three years earlier to the acquisition in the instant case. The date of notification in that case is 17.12.2003. Further, the basis of classification of land in that case was not the same as adopted in the instant case. The judgment in L.A.A.No.823/2013 would show that this Court confirmed the finding of the reference court that lands included in Category No.9 would fetch a value of Rs.1,12,000/- per Are. This judgment cannot be adopted as the basis for enhancement of compensation for the land acquired in the instant case. 11. Learned counsel for the second respondent has brought to our notice the judgment dated 04.06.2012 of this Court in L.A.A.No.764/2011. The land involved in that case was situated L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 01/2014 9 in the same village and it was acquired for the same purpose under the same notification. After evaluating the evidence in that case, this Court had found that the claimant therein was entitled to get compensation for land at Rs.1,98,600/- per Are, thereby fixing the value of the land at 98% over and above the rate at which the value of the land was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. We have fixed the value of the land in so many similar appeals at the same yardstick on the basis of the judgment in L.A.A.No.764/2011, by fixing the value of the land at a rate 98% over and above the value of land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The same procedure can be adopted in the instant case also. 12. In the instant case, the value of the land included in Category No.6, as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, is Rs.100,282/- per Are. When the value of the land is refixed at a rate 98% over this, it would come to Rs.1,98,558/- per Are. The claimant is entitled to get compensation for land at the aforesaid rate. L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 10 01/2014 13. There is a plea in the memorandum of appeal that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer towards the value of the trees in the acquired property is inadequate and the reference court has improperly declined to enhance the compensation in this regard. The reference court has found that the report of the Advocate Commissioner does not contain sufficient data to support the finding made by her in the report that the value of the trees would come to Rs.35,000/-. Ext.C1 report does not reveal the basis for assessment of the value of the trees by the Commissioner at Rs.35,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimant has not advanced any submission before this Court during the hearing with regard to enhancement of compensation for the trees in the acquired property. In these circumstances, we do not intend to interfere with the finding made by the reference court in this regard. 14. Accordingly, the appeal L.A.A.No.626/2012 is allowed in part and the appeal L.A.A.No.1/2014 is dismissed. The value of the land acquired is refixed at Rs.1,00,282/- (Rupees one lakh two hundred and eighty two only) per Are. The claimant is L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 11 01/2014 entitled to get all other statutory benefits on the basis of enhancement of compensation for land granted. No costs. ## (sd/-) **V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE** (sd/-) **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr/30/01/2019 TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE _continued at page 12/-_ L.A.A.No.626/2012 & 12 01/2014 In paragraph 14 of the judgment dated 04.02.2019 in L.A.A.No.626/2012, instead of the amount Rs.1,00,282/- (Rupees one lakh two hundred and eighty two only), the amount Rs.1,98,558/- (Rupees one lakh ninety eight thousand five hundred and fifty eight only) shall be substituted, as per order dated 22.10.2021 in I.A.No.01/2020 in LAA No.626/2012. ## (sd/-) **JOINT REGISTRAR**