N.T. Kasmi v. District Collector, Kannur; Special Tahasildar (Land Acquisition), Ezhimala Naval Academy, Payyannur

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934** ## **LA.App..No. 1179 of 2010 (D)** **---------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR.NO.76/2008 SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 27/08/2009 .......** **APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:** **------------------------------------------** **N.T.KASMI, S/O.SULAIMAN, NALUPURAPPATTIL, CHEMBICHAPARAKKE HOUSE, EZHILODE.P.O.** **BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS** **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.** ## **2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION), EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR.** **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. REJI JOSEPH** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------L.A.A. No.1179 OF 2010** ## **-------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The appellant, who is the claimant in L.A.R.No.76 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Payyannur, has filed this appeal dissatisfied with the land value awarded by the court below on a reference made to it under section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. A parcel of land 0.1010 hectares (10.10 ares) in extent, situate in Re-survey No.5/6 of Ramanthali Village, Kannur District belonging to the appellant, was acquired for the Naval Academy at Ezhimala. The notification under section 4(1) was issued on 22.2.1983. An award was passed on 31.5.1984 and possession of the land was taken over on 14.6.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,19,900/- per hectare corresponding to Rs.1199/- per are for 6.90 ares of land. For the remaining extent of 3.20 ares of land, the capitalisation method was adopted. The appellant did not dispute the land value or the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and did not seek a reference to the court under section 18 of the Act. LAA No.1179/2010 2 3. The land belonging to the appellant is situate about 1 Km away from Ramanthali town. By the very same notification, another parcel of land situate 3 Kms away from Ramanthali town was acquired and an award was passed in respect of that parcel of land, 0.7990 hectares (79.90 ares) in extent with standing trees. In that case, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,15,200/- per hectare (Rs.1152/- per are) as per award passed on 27.12.1983. Dissatisfied with the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the owner of the said parcel of land sought a reference and a reference was made to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Payyannur where it was taken on file and numbered as L.A.R.No.120 of 1987. By Ext.A1 judgment delivered on 3.9.1997 the reference court enhanced the land value to Rs.2,47,000/- per hectare (Rs.2470/- per are). In L.A.R.No.124 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Payyannur, enhanced land value was awarded in respect of another parcel of land. Relying on the award passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Payyannur in L.A.R.No.124 of 1987, the appellant herein filed an application dated 14.3.2007 under section 28(A) of the Act seeking payment of enhanced land value. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the said application on 7.4.2007 on the ground that the land belonging to the LAA No.1179/2010 3 appellant and the land involved in L.A.R.No.124 of 1987 are not similar. The appellant thereupon sought a reference to the court under section 28(3) of the Act. A reference was accordingly made and it was numbered as L.A.R.No.76 of 2008. The appellant had simultaneously filed an application dated 22.5.1998 seeking enhancement of compensation relying on Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.120 of 1987. That application was rejected on the ground that it is a second application. In L.A.R.No.76 of 2008, the appellant filed a statement dated 17.6.2008 claiming land value at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per cent, relying on Ext.A1 award in L.A.R.No.120 of 1987 wherein land value had been awarded at the rate of Rs.2,470/- per are and also the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.215 of 1998 enhancing the land value to Rs.1,500/- per cent corresponding to Rs.3705/- per are. He contended that the land involved in L.A.R.No.120 of 1987 is situate on top of a hill more than 2 ½ Km away from Ramanthali town, while his land is situate only 1 Km away from Ramanthali town and 30 metres away from the main road. 4. The second respondent in L.A.R.No.76 of 2008 filed a counter statement dated 6.7.2009 contending that the appellant is not entitled to enhanced compensation. In the court below the appellant was examined as AW-1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were produced and marked on LAA No.1179/2010 4 his side. The court below considered the rival contentions and held that the land involved in Exts.A1, A4 and A6 judgments are better, having convenient access and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said judgments to enhance the land value. The court below also held that the appellant had admitted the fact that no vehicle can be taken to the acquired land and that it has no direct access to the main road which lies 30 metres away and therefore, his claim for enhanced compensation relying on Exts.A1 and A4 to A6 judgments is not tenable. The court below however enhanced the land value to Rs.1,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs.2,470/- per are. The court below accordingly directed payment of enhanced land value at the said rate in respect of 6.90 ares of land. The compensation awarded to the remaining 3.20 ares of land was not interfered with. The appellant has dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below filed this appeal. 5. I heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The reference court has enhanced the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (Rs.1199/- per are) to Rs.2470/- per are, which is the land value awarded by the reference court in Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.120 of 1987. The reference court however declined to award LAA No.1179/2010 5 higher land value on the ground that the land involved in the instant case has no convenient access and is situate 30 metes away from the main road. Ext.A1 award in L.A.R.No.120 of 1987 establishes the fact that the land involved in that case is situate 3 Kms away from Ramanthali town on top of a hill and had no access to the main road. It was in respect of such a parcel of land that the reference court awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,47,000/- per are (Rs.2470/per cent). On appeal filed in this Court as L.A.R.No.215 of 1998, a learned single Judge of this Court enhanced the land value to Rs.1,500/- per cent corresponding to Rs.3,705/- per are. The appeal filed by the State of Kerala as L.A.A.No.481 of 1998 challenging the enhancement given by the reference court in Ext.A1 judgment was dismissed. Having regard to the findings in Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R. No.120 of 1987 and the fact that the land value awarded in respect of a parcel of land situate 3 Kms away from Ramanthali town on a hill top without any convenient access was enhanced to Rs.3,705/- per are by this Court in appeal, I am of the opinion that the reference court ought to have awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1500/- per cent (Rs.3750/- per are). The appellant has in the instant case limited the claim for land value to that extent. In addition he has also claimed land value for the entire extent of land on that basis instead of the LAA No.1179/2010 6 capitalisation method adopted in respect of a portion of the land having an extent of 3.20 ares. A Division bench of this Court has in **Easwara Varriar v. District Collector** [2011 (4) KLT 694] awarded land value on market value basis instead of capitalisation basis for the entirety of the acquired land. The Division Bench also held that while re-determining compensation under section 28(A) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer and the reference court can re-determine the market value giving proportionate increase or decrease as the case may be. The land belonging to the appellant is situate closer to Ramanthali town than the land involved in L.A.R.No.120 of 1987. The land involved in L.A.R.No.120 of 1987 is situate on a hill top 3 Kms away from Ramanthali town and had no access to the main road. In the instant case the main road is only 30 meters away though there is no motorable access to it. As this Court had deemed it fit and proper to enhance the land value in respect of the land involved in L.A.R.No.120 of 1987 to Rs.1,500/- per cent (Rs.3705/- per are), I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to land value on that basis, having regard to the fact that the land belonging to the appellant is closer to Ramanthali town. For the reasons stated above, I allow the appeal, award land value at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent (Rs.3750/- per are) for the LAA No.1179/2010 7 entirety of the acquired land having an extent of 10.10 ares. The appellant will also be entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on solatium. The compensation payable to the appellant shall be redetermined accordingly. Needless to say the amount already paid to the appellant as land value shall be deducted while computing the compensation. The decree of the reference court shall stand modified accordingly. The parties shall bear their respective costs. **(JUDGE)** vps LAA No.1179/2010 8 LAA No.1179/2010 9