State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Ernakulam v Rajeev S/o Kumaran and Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **LA.App..No. 466 of 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 34/2011 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR DATED 26-11-2012** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN-SR.GP** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR:** **1 SRI.RAJEEV S/O. KUMARAN, CHINGANEZHATH HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR 682 011** **2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM. 682 011** **BY ADVS. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.)FOR R1 SMT.REZIYA.P.A.SC RAILWAYS FOR R2 SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS FOR R1** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON 22.02.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A.No.466/2013 2 # **V.CHITAMBARESH &** ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.** ********************** L.A.A.No.466 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of February, 2019 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **R.Narayana Pisharadi, J** This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Sub Court, North Paravur in L.A.R.No.34/2011. 2. An extent of 6.18 Ares of land, situated in Mattoor Village, owned by the first respondent/claimant, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Angamaly-Sabarimala railway line. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 15.08.2007. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation by fixing the value of the land at Rs.1,87,194/- per Are. The reference court refixed the value of the land at Rs.4,44,586/- per Are. The reference court also granted an amount of Rs.22,22,044/- as compensation for injurious affection of the remaining property owned by the claimant. Aggrieved by the award passed by L.A.A.No.466/2013 3 the reference court, the State has come up in appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant and the learned counsel for the requisitioning authority. We have also perused the records. 4. Exts.A2 to A5 were the documents produced by the claimant before the reference court in support of the plea for enhancement of compensation. Exts.A2 and A3 are the copies of the documents of title regarding the land acquired. The reference court did not consider these documents to ascertain the market value of the land acquired on the date of notification. This may be for the reason that the transaction covered by the aforesaid documents had occurred in the year 1998, about ten years before the acquisition of the land. 5. Ext.A4 is the copy of document No.1298/11. The date of the transaction as per that document was 21.05.2011, nearly four years after the date of publication of the notification of acquisition. The value of the land shown in post notification documents cannot be adopted as the basis for determination of the market value of the land acquired on the date of notification (See _**Maya Devi v. State of Haryana :**_ L.A.A.No.466/2013 4 _**AIR 2018 SC 645**_ ). Therefore, the reference court has rightly declined to rely upon that document to fix the market value of the land acquired in the instant case. 6. The only other document produced by the claimant in support of the plea for enhancement of compensation is Ext.A5 judgment in L.A.R.No.36/2011 of that court. That was a case relating to acquisition of land for the same purpose under the same notification. The value of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in that case was Rs.1,36,141/- per Are. The reference court had, in that case, enhanced the compensation by refixing the value of the land at Rs.2,13,299/- per Are. The reference court did not accept Ext.A5 judgment also as the basis for fixing the value of the land acquired in the instant case. 7. The reference court relied upon the judgment of that court in L.A.R.No.39/2011 to fix the market value of the land acquired on the date of notification. That was also a case relating to acquisition of land for the same purpose under the same notification. The reference court had fixed the value of the land in that case at Rs.4,44,856/- per Are. The land acquired in that case was also in the same village. The lands L.A.A.No.466/2013 5 acquired in the two cases are situated in the same vicinity. Therefore, the reference court found that the value of the land fixed by it in L.A.R.No.39/2011 can be adopted as the value of the land acquired in the instant case also and thus, fixed the value of the land acquired in the instant case at Rs.4,44,586/per Are. 8. The State has filed the present appeal only on the ground that no opportunity was granted to it to adduce contrary evidence with regard to the valuation of the property in the judgment in L.A.R.No.39/2011 and that the reference court had suo motu relied upon that judgment as the basis for fixation of the market value of the land acquired in the instant case. 9. At the time of hearing, we had enquired with the learned Government Pleader whether the State had filed any appeal against the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.39/2011. After verification, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the State has not filed any appeal against the judgment of the reference court in that case. 10. The land acquired in L.A.R.No.39/2011 and the land acquired in the instant case are situated in the very same L.A.A.No.466/2013 6 village. The nature of the two lands is similar. The reference court has found that the two lands are also situated in the very same vicinity, one in re-survey No.300 and the other in re-survey No.297. In such circumstances, since the State has not filed any appeal against the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.39/2011, we do not intend to interfere with the value of land fixed by the reference court in the instant case based on the judgment in that case. 11. The reference court has granted a total amount of Rs.22,22,044/- as compensation for injurious affection of the remaining land having an extent of 33.32 Ares owned by the claimant. The reference court has found that the total extent of land owned by the claimant was 39.50 Ares and after acquisition of 6.18 Ares of land, the remaining extent of land owned by the claimant is 31.32 Ares. The reference court also found that acquisition of 6.18 Ares of land was somewhat at the middle of the entire property owned by the claimant in the east-west direction. As a result of acquisition, the remaining property of the claimant is bifurcated into two, one portion lying on the northern side and the other portion lying on the southern side of the acquired land. The reference court has L.A.A.No.466/2013 7 also found that since the PWD road passes along the side of the remaining land at the southern side, no loss of road frontage has occurred in respect of that portion of the land. However, the reference court found that the other portion of the remaining land owned by the claimant, which lies on the northern side of the acquired land, is left with no means of access and the claimant would have to cross the railway line to enter into that portion of the property. At the same time, the reference court found that the exact area of the land on the northern side is not ascertained by the claimant through the Advocate Commissioner. But, in order to render justice to the claimant, who has suffered reduction in the value of the remaining land, the reference court found that 15% of the land value fixed can be granted as compensation for injurious affection in respect of the entire remaining extent of 33.32 Ares. Amount of 15% of the land value fixed, that is, Rs.4,44,586/- per Are, comes to Rs.66,688/- per Are. The reference court has granted compensation for injurious affection of land in respect of 33.32 Ares at the rate Rs.66,688/- per Are. L.A.A.No.466/2013 8 12. In the appeal, the State has not disputed the fact that the remaining land owned by the claimant has become divided into two portions and that one portion is left without any means of access. The State has also not disputed the fact that acquisition of land for construction of railway line was through the middle of the entire property owned by the claimant. In such circumstances, in the absence of any specific ground raised by the State to challenge the award of compensation for injurious affection, we find no reason to reduce the amount of compensation granted by the reference court in that regard also. 13. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. However, we hasten to add that this judgment shall not be taken as a basis for fixation of the market value of land in similar or connected cases. No costs in the appeal. (sd/-) ## **V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE** (sd/-) ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr/21/02/2019 True Copy PS to Judge