High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-01-14Appeals allowed; land value fixed at Rs. 42,500...

Mary Abraham and Others v. Lakshmikutty Amma and Others (L.A.A. Nos. 925 & 974 of 2010)

Case / Petition Number:L.A.A. Nos. 925 & 974 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Pius C. KuriaKose
N.K. Balakrishnan
C.K. Abdul Rehim
Judgment Date: 2011-01-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed. Land value enhanced to Rs. 42,500 per Are for the acquired lands. Appellants entitled to statutory benefits under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, due to the 61-day delay condoned by the court, no interest will accrue under Section 28 for that period. The Registry is to prepare the decree consistent with these directions, and the delay orders in C.M.Appln. No. 1403/2010 are to be noted in the decree.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed; land value fixed at Rs. 42,500 per Are; appellants entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 28; 61-day delay condoned with no interest for that period; decree to be drafted accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MARY ABRAHAM, THEKKEKUTTU (KOCHUPURACKAL), KOLANI KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE
MELVIN MATHEW, -DO-
MABLE MATHEW, -DO-

Respondents

LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, RADHAMANI AMMA, THEKKUMPARAMPATH, KOLANI KARA
M.M.MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI, MAMPOOZHIKAL, AYARKUNNAM-686 564
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI-685 603
THE EXE.ENGINEER K.S.T.PROJECT DIVISION, P.W.D.PONKUNNAM-686 506

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. RAJU K. MATHEWS

Counsels for Respondents

• GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA (for R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This land acquisition appeal arises from the widening of the Thodupuzha–Ponnkunnam State Highway, for which a notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 19-10-2004. The claimants (C, D & E) challenged the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Rs. 21,444 per Are) and the Reference Court’s refixation at Rs. 63,450 per Are after evaluating oral and documentary evidence. The appellants sought higher compensation, arguing that Exts. A1 (1999) and A2 (2004) reflect comparable lands and justify about Rs. 50,000 per cent. Ext.A1 records a sale to BSNL at Rs. 31,449 per cent for 69 cents in Karimkunnam (adjacent village); Ext.A2 shows Rs. 40,000 per cent for 5.5 cents. The Subordinate Judge relied on Group III (A) and (C) comparables, resulting in Rs. 63,450 per Are. The appellants argued that the lower court’s rejection of Exts. A1 and A2 was improper and that the locality’s importance warrants higher value. The court distinguished State of Kerala v. Jose Simon, noting locality differences and, considering time elapsed since 1999, fixed the land value at Rs. 42,500 per Are. The appeals were allowed with entitlement to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 28, subject to a 61-day delay condonation with no interest for that period.

Provisions of Law Cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1)Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23(1A)Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 28

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that Exts. A1 (1999) and A2 (2004) demonstrate lands similar in nature and situated nearby, which the trial court wrongly rejected as not reflecting comparable values. They argued that the land fronting the road and locality should command a higher rate than the Referee Court’s Rs. 63,450 per Are, citing the need to compensate for road frontage and locality factors. They relied on the 1999 sale (Ext. A1) of 69 cents at Rs. 31,449 per cent in Karimkunnam and Ext. A2’s Rs. 40,000 per cent for 5.5 cents (2004) as benchmarks, asserting that the Group III (A) and (C) precedents used by the Reference Court underrepresented the actual value. They invoked State of Kerala v. Jose Simon (2009 (1) KLT 760) to support higher valuations, though the Court distinguished that authority on locality grounds. They urged fixation at Rs. 50,000 per cent and claimed entitlement to Section 23(1A) and Section 28 benefits, arguing that the time elapsed warrants compensation adjusted for inflation without interest for the condoned 61 days.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that Exts. A1 and A2 were rightly rejected as not sufficiently similar to the acquired land, and that the Reference Court’s use of Group III (A) and (C) comparables yielded Rs. 63,450 per Are, which the appellants challenged but failed to prove as inappropriate given locality differences. They emphasized that the Jose Simon decision relates to different municipal circumstances and cannot be mechanically applied to the Thodupuzha area. They contended that the appellants’ suggested Rs. 50,000 per cent would be excessive and would distort compensation. They supported the lower award values, pointed to the time gap since 1999, and aware of the need to maintain equity across similarly situated properties. They urged adherence to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 28 while accepting the condoned delay with no interest for the 61-day period as directed by the court.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala v. Jose Simon	(2009) 1 KLT 760	Distinguished	Cited to illustrate that similar lands in a different locality (within Thodupuzha Municipality) yielded higher value; the Kerala High Court distinguished it due to locality differences and because the case lands fell outside the municipality.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Mary Abraham and Others v. Lakshmikutty Amma and Others (L.A.A. Nos. 925 & 974 of 2010) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 925 of 2010() ------------------------LAR.107/2006 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS C,D & E ------------------------------- 1. MARY ABRAHAM, THEKKEKUTTU (KOCHUPURACKAL), KOLANI KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. 2. MELVIN MATHEW, -DO- 3. MABLE MATHEW, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS A & B & RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 --------------------------------------------------- 1. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, RADHAMANI AMMA, THEKKUMPARAMPATH, KOLANI KARA, 685 584. 2. M.M.MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI, MAMPOOZHIKAL, AYARKUNNAM-686 564. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI-685 603. 4. THE EXE.ENGINEER K.S.T.PROJECT DIVISION, - P.W.D.PONKUNNAM-686 506. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, ALONG WITH L.A.A. NO.974/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. -----------------------L.A.A..Nos. 925 & 974 OF 2010 ------------------------** Dated this the 14[th] day of January, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Balakrishnan, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in Thodupuzha Village were acquired for the purpose of widening of the Thodupuzha – Ponnkunnam State Highway. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 19/10/2004. The properties acquired from the claimant in L.A.A. No.925/2010 was dry land which was categorised by the Land Acquisition Officer as Group III(B). The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.21,444/- per Are. The Reference Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, refixed the land value at Rs.63,450/- per Are. The claimants contend that they are entitled to get compensation fixing the land value at Rs.50,000/per cent. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that LAA.No.925 & 974 of 2010 2 Exts.A1 and A2 produced by the claimants for comparing the land value were rejected by the court below without assigning proper reasons. Ext.A1 is a document of the year 1999, which shows that 69 cents of property was purchased by the BSNL at the rate of Rs.31,449/- per cent. The property was stated to be situated in Karimkunnam village which is the adjacent village. Since it was situated in another village, the learned Subordinate Judge was not inclined to accept the property mentioned in Ext.A1 as lands similar in nature and similarly situated. Ext.A2 is another document which is of the year 2004. As per that document, 5.5. cents of land was purchased by one Zachariah at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per cent. Since it is a small bit of land, that may not reflect the real land value of a land similar in nature and similarly situated. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the court below thereafter proceeded to decide the land value based on the award passed by that court in respect of the properties coming under Group III (A) and Group III(C). In respect of the properties shown under Group III(A), land value was fixed at Rs.70,501/- per Are whereas for the lands coming under Group III (C), land value LAA.No.925 & 974 of 2010 3 was fixed at Rs.59,926/- per Are. The learned Subordinate Judge by taking almost the average refixed the land value in respect of the properties under acquisition in these cases at Rs.63,450/per Are. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that even originally the acquired land was having road frontage and so the claim for refixation of the land value at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per cent is quite reasonable. The learned counsel has also cited the decision in State of Kerala v. Jose Simon (2009 (1) KLT 760), wherein value of lands almost similar in nature, was refixed at the rate of Rs.82,500/- per cent. But the property in that case was situated within the limits of Thodupuzha Municipality and as such the land value shown therein cannot be accepted in this case. But, however, considering the importance of the locality and the further fact that even in 1999, as per Ext.A1 the purchase was made at the rate of Rs.31,449/-, and considering the passage of time, we are inclined to refix the land value in respect of the properties under acquisition in these cases at Rs.42,500/- per cent. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 LAA.No.925 & 974 of 2010 4 (2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, during the period of 61 days delay condoned by this court by separate order in C.M.Appln. No.1403/2010 in L.A.A.925/2010, the amount will not carry interest under Section 28. The Registry will take note of the orders passed by this court in the delay petition (C.M.Appln.1403/2010) while preparing the decree. ## **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE** **N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** dpk LAA.No.925 & 974 of 2010 5 **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -----------------------C.M.Appln. No.1403 of 2010 in L.A.A.No. 925 OF 2010 ------------------------** Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2010 ## **O R D E R** LAA.No.925 & 974 of 2010 6 Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Heard both sides. We are of the view that notice need not be issued to the party respondents as they were not awarded any amount under the impugned judgment. This application will stand allowed and the delay will stand condoned subject to the following conditions; i). The appellant will pay a sum of Rs.2500/- to the Government through the office of the Advocate General within ten days from today and produce receipt. ii). The appellant will pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within the same time limit. iii). In the event of the appeal being allowed and the appellant becoming eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry LAA.No.925 & 974 of 2010 7 interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period of 61 days condoned by this order. Annex a copy of this order to the judgment to be passed in the appeal. The Registry will send up the appeal for admission once receipts against payment of the above amounts are noticed. ## **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE** **C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE** dpk