State of Kerala (represented by District Collector, Kottayam) v. C.V. John Kavalam Puthupparambil; cross objects by Molly John, etc. (LA.App. Nos. 405 of 2017; 443 of 2015; CO Nos. 115 of 2018; 79 of 2017)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941** **LA.App..No.405 of 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR NO.12/2011 of the PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM DATED 18-12-2013** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN L.A.R:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM. 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.T.P MUVATTUPUZHA. BY SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN L.A.R:** **C.V. JOHN KAVALAM PUTHUPARAMBIL, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN – 686 106.** **BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH CO.115/2018, LA.App.443/2015 & CO.79/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 L.A.A Nos.405 of 2017, 443 of 2015 & C.O.Nos. 115 of 2018 & 79 of 2017 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941** **CO.No.115 of 2018 IN LA.App.. 405/2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR NO.12/2011 of the PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM DATED 18-12-2013** ## **CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** **C.V.JOHN,** **KAVALAM PUTHUPARAMBIL, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686 106.** **BY ADV. JAMES KURIAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686 001.** **2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT (KSTP), MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686 661. R1 & R2 BY SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019,ALONG WITH LA.App.405/2017, LA.App.443/2015 & CO.79/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 L.A.A Nos.405 of 2017, 443 of 2015 & C.O.Nos. 115 of 2018 & 79 of 2017 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **LA.App..No.443 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 11/2011 of the PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM DATED 18-12-2013** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN L.A.R:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.** - **2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.T.P MUVATTUPUZHA** - **BY SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN L.A.R:** - **MOLLY JOHN, D/O.ANNAMMA, KAVALAN PUTHUPARAMBIL, VAZHAPPALLY EAST, CHANGANACHERRY – 686 103.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App.405/2017,CO.79/2017 & CO.115/2018 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A Nos.405 of 2017, 443 of 2015 & C.O.Nos. 115 of 2018 & 79 of 2017 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941** **CO.No.79 of 2017 IN LA.App.. 443/2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 11/2011 of the PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM DATED 18-12-2013** ## **CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** **MOLLY JOHN, D/O. ANNAMMA, KAVALAM PUTHUPARAMBIL,VAZHAPPALLY EAST, CHANGANAASERY,PIN - 686 103.** **BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.T.P,MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App.443/2015, LA.App.405/2017 & CO.115/2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 L.A.A Nos.405 of 2017, 443 of 2015 & C.O.Nos. 115 of 2018 & 79 of 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** These appeals and cross objections are preferred against the decrees and judgments in two references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) in respect of the lands acquired for widening of Muvattupuzha – Ettumanoor – Chengannoor State Highway, pursuant to a notification issued under the Act on 15.12.2007. The appeals are by the State and cross objections are by the claimants in the proceedings. 2. 0.24 Ares of land held by the claimant in L.A.R No.12 of 2011, which is the subject matter of LAA No.405 of 2017 and 0.19 Ares of land held by the claimant in L.A.R No.11 of 2011, which is the subject matter of LAA No.443 of 2015 were acquired for widening of Muvattupuzha – Ettumanoor – Chengannoor State Highway, pursuant to the notification referred to above. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value for the acquired lands at Rs.1,96,456/- per Are and on reference, the reference court 6 L.A.A Nos.405 of 2017, 443 of 2015 & C.O.Nos. 115 of 2018 & 79 of 2017 enhanced and re-fixed the land value at Rs.3,20,754/- per Are. The State as also the claimants are aggrieved by the land value fixation made by the reference court. Hence these appeals and cross objections. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the claimants. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the reference court has assumed arbitrarily that the acquired lands are better lands when compared to the basis document at least by 30% and fixed the land value for the acquired lands on that basis adding 20% cost escalation per year. It was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the maximum cost escalation that could be reckoned by the reference court in a case of this nature, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another** [(2008) 14 SCC 745], is 10-15% in the case of urban areas. It was contended that the 7 L.A.A Nos.405 of 2017, 443 of 2015 & C.O.Nos. 115 of 2018 & 79 of 2017 acquired lands being lands situated at Changannassery, even if 10% escalation is worked out after adding 30% from the land value shown in the basis document for the locational importance, the compensation payable would have been much less than the land value now fixed by the reference court. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants pointed out that in respect of an acquisition made for the very same purpose, pursuant to an earlier notification issued on 05.12.2004, after negotiation, the District Collector fixed the land value at Rs.3,00,000/- per cent. According to the learned counsel, the lands involved in the instant case are better lands when compared to the land, for which the District Collector has fixed the land value at Rs.3,00,000/- per cent and if the said land value at least is fixed, the claimants would have got much more compensation than what is granted by the reference court. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in W.P(C). No.17103 of 2008, in support of the contention. 5. I have considered the contentions advanced by the 8 L.A.A Nos.405 of 2017, 443 of 2015 & C.O.Nos. 115 of 2018 & 79 of 2017 learned counsel on either side. It is seen that the land value fixation has been made by the Collector based on Ext.R1 document dated 21.01.2011. The land value shown therein would work out to be Rs.1,88,679.25 per Are. If 30% addition is made for the locational importance, the land value would come to Rs.2,45,283/- per Are. Even if the land value is arrived at on that basis applying 15% cost escalation cumulatively for the period in between the notifications, the land value would come to Rs.3,73,044/- per Are, which is more than the land value awarded by the reference court. 6. Be that as it may. It is seen from the Judge’s Papers in W.P.(C)No.17103 of 2008 that a bit of land which was part of SB College, Changanassery including a monumental arch was acquired by the State for widening of the very same road pursuant to an earlier notification dated 05.12.2004. There was some dispute as regards the acquisition of the monumental arch as also the land value fixed for the said purpose. It appears that the said issue has been resolved amicably between the parties, and in terms of the 9 L.A.A Nos.405 of 2017, 443 of 2015 & C.O.Nos. 115 of 2018 & 79 of 2017 settlement arrived at in this regard, the State has agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- per cent by way of land value. The settlement arrived at as referred to above has been endorsed by this court in the judgement rendered in the said case. If the acquired lands are better lands when compared to the land referred to in W.P.(C)No.17103 of 2008, as submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, they are entitled to more compensation. But, there is nothing on record to make a comparison between the acquired lands and the land, which is the subject matter of W.P.(C)No.17103 of 2008. In the light of the decision of this court in W.P.(C)No.17103 of 2008, according to me, interest of justice demands that the claimants shall be given an opportunity to establish that the acquired lands are better lands or at least lands of the same nature when compared to the subject matter of the land involved in W.P.(C)No.17103 of 2008. In the result, the land acquisition appeals and cross objections are allowed and the matters are remitted for fresh disposal to the reference court. As the matters are remitted for fresh L.A.A Nos.405 of 2017, 443 of 2015 & C.O.Nos. 115 of 2018 & 79 of 2017 **==> picture [13 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** disposal, the claimants will be entitled to refund of the court fee paid in the cross objections. The parties are directed to appear before the reference court on 12.08.2019. All interlocutory applications in the appeals and cross objections are closed. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** DK