IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
## PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/15TH KARTHIKA, 1936
LA.App..No. 346 of 2012 () ---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 18/2010 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 15-11-2011
APPELLANT(S):
------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D ROADSN DIVISION MUVATTUPUZHA
BY SHRI R. PADMARAJ, SR.G.P.
RESPONDENT(S):CLAIMANT
----------------------------
NUSAIBA
W/O.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN RAWTHER PADINJARE OTTATHU PUTHEN VEEDU RAMANGALAM KARA MARADY 686673
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V. ASHA, JJ.**
**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**
## **L.A.A. No.346 of 2012**
**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**
## **DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014**
## **JUDGMENT**
## Ramachandran Nair, J.
This appeal is from the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.18/2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The State by a notification dated 15.3.2008 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, acquired certain items of properties for construction of Ernakulam - Thekkady State High Way Naz Road chainage by MVIP. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.3,85,006/- per are. Before the reference court, the claimant relied upon Ext.A1 sale deed wherein the value per cent will come to Rs.5,62,082/-. The extent of the property in Ext.A1 is 0.88955 cents, viz. 910 sq. links.
2. Before the reference court the claimant was examined as A.W.1. Ext.R1 is the copy of the mahazar and sketch prepared in L.A.C. No.101/2009. Ext.C1 is the report of the Commissioner and Ext.C1(a) is the rough sketch produced along with it.
3. We heard learned Senior Government Pleader Shri R. Padmaraj
LAA No.346/2013
-2-
and Shri Sabu George and Smt. Nidhi Balachandran for the respondent.
4. Learned Senior Government Pleader, while explaining the details of the acquisition, submitted that the properties were acquired to connect two roads, viz. M.C. Road with Muvattupuzha - Arakkuzha road. It was known as Naz Road and the acquisition is for the purpose of widening the said road.
5. It is submitted that Ext.A1 reflects a transaction of the property just opposite to the KSRTC Bus Stand, Muvattupuzha, viz. on the side of M.C. Road which is more important than the locality wherein the acquired properties are situated. It is further submitted that the extent being only 910 sq. links and being a commercially important plot, the transaction was undertaken by paying a huge amount. It is submitted that as far as the acquired property is concerned, it is on a corner which is abutted by Muvattupuzha - Arakkuzha road and Naz road which cannot claim equal importance to that of a property on the side of M.C. Road. Therefore, it is submitted that the method adopted by the reference court is not justified. Apart from the same, it is submitted that the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is reasonable. The basic land relates to document
LAA No.346/2013
-3-
No.2825/2007 dated 27.4.2007 wherein the land value shown is Rs.3,20,839/- per are. It is submitted that the properties acquired have been categorised as 'A' to 'F'. Item 'A' categories properties lying on the side of M.C. Road and are dry lands, item 'B' properties are lying on the side of M.C. Road, which were wet lands, but are dry lands now, item 'C' categories properties lying on the side of Muvattupuzha - Pandappally road and are dry lands, item 'D' are those lying on the side of Muvattupuzha - Pandappally P.W.D. Road and are now dry lands. Item 'E' are those on the side of a municipal road and are dry lands and item 'F' also are those on the side of a municipal road which were wet land, but are now dry lands. It is submitted that by adopting a reasonable method, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed an amount of Rs.4,62,007/- for 'A' category lands and for properties categorised as 'B', 11% less than that of category 'A', viz. Rs.4,15,807/- per are; for properties categorised as 'C', 19% less than 'A' category viz. Rs.3,85,006/-; for 'D' category properties, 10% less than 'C' category (33% less than 'A' category), at Rs.3,46,516/-; for 'E' category properties, 43% less than that of 'A' category, viz. At Rs.3,20,839/- and for 'F' category, 10% less than that of 'E' category, viz. At Rs.2,88,752/- (55%
LAA No.346/2013
-4-
less than that of 'A' category).
6. The important aspect pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader is that Ext.A1 property is not comparable at all and there was no other evidence on the part of the claimant also.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant Shri Sabu George submitted that the property acquired is equally important since the same is situated in the heart of the municipal town itself. Evidently, it is having two roads on its sides and he also relied upon the report of the Commissioner in this context.
8. We have perused the report of the Commissioner wherein the Commissioner has recorded as follows: The acquired property is bounded on the east by Muvattupuzha - Arakkuzha road, on the south by Naz road which reaches the M.C. Road and on northern and southern sides two residential plots are there. The details of the property covered by Ext.A1 are available in paragraph 4. Therein, it is stated that the said property lies at a distance of 150 metres from the acquired property on the western side of M.C. Road, close to the said road. A shop, viz. “Modern Cafe - Bakery and Cool Drinks” is functioning there and on comparing the acquired property with that of the property covered by Ext.A1, both may be important equally,
LAA No.346/2013
-5-
commercially as well as industrially. But it is further mentioned that the acquired property is situated in a residential area.
9. We find on a reference to the mahazar prepared by the Special Tahsildar dated 5.2.2009, a copy of which was produced for perusal by the learned Senior Govt. Pleader, that the properties were acquired for widening a 338 meter road. The KSRTC Bus Stand, Taluk Hospital, District Probation Office, Petrol Bunk, Theatre Complex, mosque, Police quarters, Dental Lab Co-operative Employees Society, Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, service stations etc. are situated within
100 metres of the acquired property. It is located in the heart of Muvattupuzha town and Muvattupuzha river is only 250 metres east of the alignment and the Post Office junction is at a distance of 500 metres. Going by the report, in some of the items of properties there are coconut trees. It is also seen from the mahazar that during recent times there is increase in land value in Muvattupuzha town. We notice that he has also recorded that the properties acquired and the nearby localities are commercially important also.
10. Of course, the plot included in Ext.A1 transaction is a smaller
LAA No.346/2013
-6-
one compared to the acquired properties, but the acquired properties, going by the submission by the learned counsel for the claimant, are having extent only between 4 - 5 cents. Even though learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that being a transaction in respect of a very small plot, Ext.A1 cannot be relied upon, we are of the view that in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various cases, when the transactions relating to comparable lands are not available, there is no harm in relying upon the document in respect of a small extent of land subject to certain conditions. It was held that importance of both items of land can be compared and by adopting a method, viz. by deducting a percentage for the smallness of the plot a reasonable amount can be fixed by this Court. We refer with advantage to the decision of the Apex Court in **Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal (** 2011 (4) KLT SN 1).
11. There is no case for the appellants that the transaction reflected in Ext.A1 is not a genuine one. The evidence of the claimant is also there apart from the report of the Commissioner. Then, the only question is whether the acquired property can claim equal importance to that of the
LAA No.346/2013
-7-
property on the side of M.C. Road, that too the property covered by Ext.A1 being on the opposite side of KSRTC bus stand. It is clear from the report of the Commissioner that the acquired property is on the side of Muvattupuzha - Arakkuzha road and Naz road. Therefore, we are of the view that the claimant cannot claim equal importance to the acquired property. Apart from the same, it is a residential plot also. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the acquired property is on the heart of Muvattupuzha Town also. The reference court has adopted the same value as that of Ext.A1 and fixed the land value at Rs.13,88, 342/- per are. No reduction has been made as the commercial importance and the locational importance of Ext.A1 property. What is pointed out by the reference court is that going by the evidence of A.W.1, it could be seen that the acquired property is situated in the very same village, same taluk and is situated in an important locality. Of course, both localities are important, but which is the more important locality, is the question to be considered while fixing the land value. If that be so, it can be seen that the plot covered by Ext.A1 which is just opposite to KSRTC Bus Stand and on the heart of Muvattupuzha Town, is more important.
LAA No.346/2013
-8-
Even then, by granting a reasonable deduction, the said document can be relied upon.
12. We therefore refix the land value by reducing 20% from the value reflected in Ext.A1 for the acquired land in LAR NO.18/2010. Accordingly, the land value is refixed at Rs.11,10,673.60 per are (rounded up to Rs.11,10,675/-).
The appeal is allowed to that extent. The parties will bear their costs. We also make it clear that the claimant will be entitled for all the statutory benefits granted by the reference court.
- **(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)**
## **(P.V. ASHA, JUDGE)**
kav/
