State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Kottayam v. Sunil s/o Mani

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **FRIDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **LA.App..No. 615 of 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16-12-2013 IN LAR 50/2012 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.** - **2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.V.I.P.DIVISION, NO.IV, PIRAVOM,.** **BY SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** **SUNIL S/O.MANI, PUTHOORAYA CHAGAMATTATHIL, KUNNAPPALLY KARA, MULAKKULAM.** **BY ADVS. ADV.SMT.ASWINI SANKER.R.S SMT.ASHA BABU SMT.S.PARVATHI SRI.ARUNBABY STEPHEN SRI.G.RENJITH SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.S.M.PRASANTH** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2018, THE COURT ON 30.11.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A.No.615/2015 2 ## **V.CHITAMBARESH & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.** ************************** L.A.A.No.615 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **R.Narayana Pisharadi, J** This appeal is filed by the State, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent in L.A.R.No.50/2012 of the Sub Court, Kottayam. 2. An extent of 9.85 Ares of land owned by the respondent-claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of a canal in connection with the Moovattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 25.11.2008. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award granting a total compensation of Rs.10,62,347/- fixing the land value at Rs.32,900/- per Are and the value of the building and the compound wall in the property L.A.A.No.615/2015 3 at Rs.3,18,666/-. The property was taken possession on 08.12.2011. 3. In the court below, the claimant was examined as AW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. No oral evidence was adduced by the State but Exts.R1 and R2 documents were marked. The commission report and sketch were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). 4. The court below enhanced the compensation by fixing the value of the land at Rs.86,944/- per Are. The court below also granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the well situated in the property. The court below also enhanced the compensation towards the value of the trees in the property from Rs.8,195/- to Rs.61,925/-. The total amount of compensation granted by the court below comes to Rs.12,86,989/- along with other statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the award passed by the court below, the State has come up in appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the records. L.A.A.No.615/2015 4 6. The market value of the land was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.32,900/- per Are. The court below fixed the land value at Rs.86,944/- per Are. The court below relied upon Ext.A4 judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.315/2011 for fixation of the land value at the aforesaid rate. 7. In L.A.A.No.315/2011, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 28.01.2005. The purpose of acquisition of land in that case was also for Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the lands involved in L.A.A.No.315/2011 and in the present case are of similar nature and that they are similarly situated. The land value fixed by this Court in L.A.A.No.315/2011 was Rs.22,000/- per cent which is equivalent to Rs.54,340/- per Are. However, the court below took note of the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in L.A.A.No.315/2011 was published on 28.01.2005 but the notification in the instant case was published on 25.11.2008 and that there would be escalation of price of the land during the interval of more than three years between the L.A.A.No.615/2015 5 dates of the two notifications. Considering the rise in price index, inflation and escalation of land value during such period, the court below found that enhancement of the land value at 60% from the value of the land fixed in L.A.A.No.315/2011 is required in the instant case and accordingly, the land value was fixed at Rs.86,944/- per Are. 8. Learned Government Pleader contended that compensation on account of escalation of price of land cannot be granted at a rate more than 15% in respect of lands in urban and semi-urban areas and not more than 10% in rural areas. Learned Government Pleader placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in **General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel : (2008) 14 SCC 745** in support of his contention. 9. In **ONGC** (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: _“Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors: situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area,_ L.A.A.No.615/2015 6 _and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be_ L.A.A.No.615/2015 7 _adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be ” applied would depend upon the same ._ (emphasis supplied) 10. The passage from the decision of the Apex Court extracted above would show that the principle mentioned therein was enunciated in respect of acquisition of land in the nineties. Moreover, in the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has held that where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase of prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. 11. In the instant case, the claimant had produced two pre-notification documents (Exts.A1 and A2) in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation. Ext.A1 is a sale deed executed on 11.02.2000. This document shows that land was purchased by the BSNL for Rs.28,750/- per cent. Ext.A2 is a sale L.A.A.No.615/2015 8 deed executed on 19.10.2007. As per this document, 4.96 Ares of land was sold for Rs.4,75,000/-. The land involved in Exts.A1 and A2 documents is in Mulakkulam village. The land acquired in the instant case is also situated in that village. Exts.A1 and A2 documents would show that the market value of the land fixed by the court below at Rs.86,944/- per Are is not on the higher side. 12. In **ONGC** (supra), the Apex Court has held that when escalation of price of property is determined, it shall not be on the basis of flat rate but on cumulative rate, each year. In the instant case, the court below has determined escalation in price of the land at the rate of 60% for the total period of more than three years. If the escalation price determined by the court below is calculated at a cumulative rate from year to year, it would come to only about 16% per year. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no illegality or impropriety in the fixation of the land value by the court below at Rs. 86,994/- per are. The value of the land fixed is not on the higher side. L.A.A.No.615/2015 9 14. There was a well in the land acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer did not grant any compensation for the well. The court below has granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the well. We also see no ground to interfere with this amount fixed by the court below. The amount of compensation fixed by the court below towards the value of trees in the property cannot also be found to be excessive. 15. There in no challenge made in the appeal with regard to the compensation awarded by the court below for the building and the compound wall situated in the property acquired. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, we see no sufficient ground to interfere with the award passed by the court below. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. No costs. (sd/-) ## **V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE** (sd/-) ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr/lsn