State of Kerala v. Rev. T.K. Mathew, T.K. Joseph, T.K. George and The Executive Engineer, K.S.T.P. Kottarakkara Division

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **& THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/6TH KARTHIKA, 1936** **LA.App..No. 510 of 2009 ( ) ----------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 58/2005 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 31-10-2007** ## **APPELLANTS/IST RESPONDENT:** **------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **** 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.T.P. KOTTARAKKARA DIVISION** **BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ALOYSIOUS THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS** **------------------------------------------** **1. REV.T.K. MATHEW, DAIVATHUM VEETTIL PEEDIKAYIL, KANNAMKODE MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE.** **2. T.K. JOSEPH, DAIVATHUM VEETTIL PEEDIKAYIL, KANNAMKODE MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE.** **3. T.K. GEORGE, DAIVATHUM VEETTIL PEEDIKAYIL, KANNAMKODE MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE.** **** 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.T.P. KOTTARAKKARA DIVISION** **THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IS TRANSPOSED AS SECOND APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 11.10.2011 IN I.A.NO.2475/2011.** **R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-10-2014, ALONG WITH LAA. 529/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V.ASHA, JJ.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **L.A.A.Nos.510 OF 2009 & 529 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29[th] day of October , 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Ramachandran Nair, J. L.A.A.No.510/2009 is from the judgment in L.A.R.No.58/2005 of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta and L.A.A.No.529/2013 is from the judgment in L.A.R. No.18/2006. Both the references were disposed of by a common judgment. Here the notification under Section 4(1) was published on 26/07/2003. The land acquisition officer awarded land value @ Rs. 38,858/- per Are. The reference court refixed the land value @ Rs. 3 lakhs per Are. 2. We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Aloysious Thomas and the learned counsel Sri.K.Shaj for the claimants. 3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no comparison with Exts.A1 to A3 properties as far as the acquired L.A.A.Nos.510/09 & 529/2013 2 properties are concerned. It is submitted that the land value refixed is on a higher side. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the acquired property is in an important locality namely near Adoor Central Junction and is situated exactly in the Nellimoottilpadi junction. It is submitted that there are so many important institutions in and nearby and the property being in the centre of the town namely near the Central Junction, the land value fixed by the Reference Court cannot be said to be on a higher side. Apart from the same, the learned counsel submitted that Ext.A1 will show that the document is dated 23.3.2001 . Ext.A2 is dated 26.11.1998 and Ext.A3 is dated 24.11.1998. It is submitted that going by the decision of the Apex Court in **Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot v. Muhammed Hanif Sahib (2002 (3) SCC 688)** while fixing the market value appreciation @ 10% for every subsequent year after the base year will not be excessive and if that be so only reasonable compensation has been fixed by the land acquisition officer. 3 L.A.A.Nos.510/09 & 529/2013 5. Going by the report of the Commissioner Ext.C1 the acquired property is situated in the Nellimoottilpadi junction on the western side of M.C. Road. The purpose of acquisition is to widen the M.C. Road itself. The plot in question is a rectangular one which is lying as a level plot. It is further stated that apart from the fact that the property is on the side of M.C. Road in the junction, there is another road Adoor-Shasthamcotta road which goes towards west from the said junction and towards the eastern side Municipal road is also situated which goes to the Holy Angel School junction. It is also stated that from the M.C. Road towards east there is another Municipal road which goes to Kottamugal. The nearby junctions then indicated by the Commissioner are the Adoor Central Junction which is situated 800 metres north of the acquired property, towards 1 km. north is the KSRTC bus stand junction and towards 1 km. south is the Vadakkedathukavu Junction and towards 600 Metre south east is the Vellakkulangara junction. Apart from the same, towards 1½ km. south east there is another junction called Manakkala junction. L.A.A.Nos.510/09 & 529/2013 4 6. The Commissioner has visited the properties covered by the transactions Exts.A1 to A3. With regard to the property involved in Ext.A1, it is stated that the same is at a distance of 1.2 km. north of the acquired property. On a comparison it is stated that the same is a paddy land lying below the road level and there is no road frontage to the property, whereas the acquired property is a dry land and is also a level land. As far as Ext.A2 property is concerned, it is 250 mts. north of Adoor central junction. The property is having an extent of 3 cents and it is bounded by other shop buildings. From the acquired property it is situated 1.2 km. north. It is also stated that the same is lying below the road level and was lying as a paddy land, but is now a converted one. The same is also not having road frontage to M.C. Road. As far as Ext.A3 property is concerned, the same is situated 300 metres north of Adoor Central toll and there is a private road on the south of it and on the north of it there is a Thodu. The extent of the property is four cents. As far as the distance factor is concerned, the same is 1.2 km. north of the acquired property. The said property is one lying below the road L.A.A.Nos.510/09 & 529/2013 5 level and it is a paddy land and partially filled one, but it is not having M.C. Road frontage. **7.** The evidence adduced by the claimants will therefore show that the acquired property is very near to Adoor Central junction and is situated in the Nellimoottilpadi junction. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader vehemently submitted that Exts.A1 to A3 properties cannot be compared to the acquired property going by the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. True that Ext.A1 transaction is of the year 2001 and Exts.A2 and A3 are of the year 1998. If the land value reflected in Ext.A1 is taken, it will be Rs. 1,15,000/- per cent i.e. Rs. 2,84,000/per Are. If 10% increase annually is adopted, then it will be more than Rs. 3 lakhs namely around Rs. 3,40,000/- as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1). Of course while fixing the land value, normally the documents showing comparable transactions will have to be considered by the court. But in any case if the same is absent, the court will be justified in considering the documents of the transactions L.A.A.Nos.510/09 & 529/2013 6 of nearby properties. By adopting a proper method of assessment after giving allowance for advantages and disadvantages, the value can be arrived at. This is a well settled principle laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions. 9. In that view of the matter, the court below after assessing the importance of the locality, as reported by the Commissioner in Exts.C1 to C3 and after considering Exts.A1 to A3 found that the land value fixed by the land acquisition officer is very low. The important factor is that the property is situated very near to the Adoor Central Junction which is surrounded by various institutions. Those institutions include worship centres, KSRTC bus station, Municipal bus stand, RDO office, Municipal road, Revenue offices, Educational institutions etc., 10. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the land acquisition officer has fixed the correct value by adopting Rs.38,858/- per Are . But we are of the view that in view of the importance of the locality, the potentiality of the land as well as the L.A.A.Nos.510/09 & 529/2013 7 importance of the junction where the acquired property is situated and the fact that there are three roads passing very near to the acquired property and there are four junctions also which are situated within short distances, the land will be having a much higher potential value. If that be so, the method adopted by the court below by comparing with the sale price reflected in Exts.A1 to A3 cannot be said to be faulty. Apart from that the respondents have not adduced any evidence to justify the land value reflected in the award. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE** ## **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE** sv. L.A.A.Nos.510/09 & 529/2013 8