The Administrator Guruvayur Devaswom v. M/S Sameeksha House & Homes Pvt. Ltd and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **THURSDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **LA.App..No. 284 of 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04-10-2016 IN LAR 57/2003 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **THE ADMINISTRATOR GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYUR** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPAL SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:** - **1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. SAMEEKSHA HOUSE & HOMES PVT.LTD,1/103,MAROTTICHUVADU, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 682 024** - **2 MS. LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD, (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH HDFC BANK) KALOOR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER KOCHI 682 017** - **3 HUDCO LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,3RD FLOOR, SAPHALYAM COMPLEX, M.G ROAD, TRIVANDRUM 695 034** - **4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYUR 680 101** - **5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR, PIN 680 001** L.A.A.No.284/2017 2 **SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R1 & CAVEATOR SRI.S.R.D.PRABHU FOR R2 SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM FOR R3 SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN SR.GP FOR R4 AND R5** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.12.2018, THE COURT ON 13.12.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** L.A.A.No.284/2017 3 ## **V.CHITAMBARESH & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.** ************************** L.A.A.No.284 of 2017 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of December, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **R.Narayana Pisharadi, J** This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 04.10.2016 passed by the Sub Court, Thrissur in L.A.R.No.57 of 2003. 2. An extent of 0.4843 hectares of land in Guruvayoor Village, owned by the first respondent/claimant, was acquired in connection with the development projects of Guruvayoor Devaswom. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 15.10.1999. The possession of the land was taken on 15.11.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for land fixing the value of the land at Rs.96,513/- per Are. An amount of Rs.28,740/- was awarded as compensation for improvements and also Rs.53,715/- as L.A.A.No.284/2017 4 compensation for the structures in the property acquired. 3. During the enquiry in the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, AW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A16 documents were marked on the side of the first respondent/claimant. RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exts.R1 to R6 documents were marked on the side of the respondents in the case. The commission report was marked as Ext.C1. 4. The reference court enhanced the compensation for land fixing the land value at Rs.1,89,375/- per cent (Rs.4,67,756/- per Are). The reference court also enhanced the compensation for the structures to Rs.69,830/-. The reference court further granted Rs.10,000/- per cent as compensation for severance of land. Aggrieved by the award passed by the reference court, the Guruvayoor Devaswom, the requisitioning authority, has come up in appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the respondents and the learned Government Pleader. We have also perused the records. 6. On an earlier occasion, the reference court dismissed L.A.A.No.284/2017 5 the case on the finding that there was no valid reference made by the Collector and that the reference was barred by limitation. The aforesaid findings were set aside by this Court as per the judgment in W.P.(C) No.15712 of 2007 and the reference case was restored to file and the court below was directed to consider the case including the question of limitation. As per the impugned judgment, the court below has found that the reference made is maintainable. This finding made by the court below is not challenged in the present appeal. 7. The reference court has discarded Exts.R1 to R5 documents produced by the State and relied upon Ext.A1 document produced by the first respondent/claimant for fixation of the value of the land acquired. 8. Ext.R1 sale deed shows that 10 cents of land in Guruvayoor Village was sold for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/on 22.01.1997. Ext.R2 sale deed would show that 10 cents of land in Guruvayoor Village was sold for a total consideration of Rs.4,98,000/- on 27.01.1997. Ext.R3 sale deed shows that 11.266 cents of land in Guruvayoor Village was sold for a total L.A.A.No.284/2017 6 consideration of Rs.4,80,000/- on 30.01.1997. Ext.R4 sale deed shows that 11 cents of land in Guruvayoor Village was sold for a total consideration of Rs.4,98,000/- on 03.02.1997. Ext.R5 sale deed shows that 11 cents of land in Guruvayoor Village was sold for a total consideration of Rs.4,90,000/- on 06.02.1997. 9. A scrutiny of Exts.R1 to R5 documents would show that the transactions covered by those documents were between the same persons. The lands covered by those documents were sold by the one and the same person. The persons who purchased the lands were also the same persons. The transactions took place on different dates with short intervals. The lands sold as per Exts.R1 to R5 documents were part of a larger extent of one and the same property. The very nature of the transactions covered by Exts.R1 to R5 documents would indicate the existence of a deal between the seller and the purchaser. There is everything to suspect that these documents do not reflect the real market value of the property in the locality. In such circumstances, the reference court has rightly declined to accept the consideration shown in Exts.R1 to R5 documents as L.A.A.No.284/2017 7 the basis for fixing the value of the land acquired. 10. Ext.A1 document shows that 30.40 cents of land in Guruvayoor Village was sold on 06.01.1998 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- per cent. The land covered by Ext.A1 document was purchased by the Central Government for the Central Excise Department. The consideration for the land shown in Ext.A1 document is based on the valuation certificate given by the District Collector. 11. Ext.C1 is the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner after inspecting the property acquired and also the property covered by Ext.A1 document. Ext.C1 report shows that there is a road on the northern and western boundaries of the acquired property. This property is located at a distance of 300 metres from the Guruvayoor Sreekrishna Temple. There are important institutions within a radius of 500 metres of the acquired property. 12. Ext.C1 report shows that the property covered by Ext.A1 document is situated at the side of GuruvayoorChavakkad public road. It is located at a distance of 300 metres L.A.A.No.284/2017 8 from the acquired property. It is located only at a distance of 300 metres from the Guruvayoor Sreekrishna Temple. 13. The property acquired and the property covered by Ext.A1 document are located in the close vicinity of the Guruvayoor Sreekrishna Temple. There is direct access from road to both properties. These two properties are similar in nature. Ext.C1 report shows that they are also similarly situated properties. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the consideration shown in Ext.A1 sale deed was the result of negotiation between the owner of the property and the Central Government and it does not reflect the real market value of the property. There is no merit in this contention. There is a specific recital in Ext.A1 document that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per cent was fixed as the price of the property therein after obtaining certificate from the District Collector regarding the fair value of the property. Ext.A1 document also shows that the owner of the property had demanded Rs.2,50,000/- per cent but the District Collector assessed the fair value of the property as Rs.1,50,000/- L.A.A.No.284/2017 9 per cent and it was fixed as the price of the property. Being a transaction to which the Central Government was a party, there can be no doubt with regard to the fact that there was no under valuation or over valuation of the property. We are of the view that Ext.A1 document reflects the real market value of the property in the locality. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the property covered by Ext.A1 document is abutting a PWD road, that is, Guruvayoor-Chavakkad public road but the property acquired has no such road frontage. Admittedly, the property acquired is situated very near to the Guruvayoor Sreekrishna Temple which is a well known pilgrimage centre in India. There is direct access to the acquired property from the road on two sides. This road may not be a main road. But, it does not make any difference in the instant case. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant would fairly admit that cars and other small vehicles could pass through the road in front of the acquired property. In such circumstances, the fact that the property covered by Ext.A1 document is abutting a PWD road or L.A.A.No.284/2017 10 main road is not a sufficient ground to find that it is not a property similarly situated as that of the acquired property. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the value of the land shown in Ext.A1 document can be adopted as the basis for fixation of the value of the acquired land. 17. The transaction under Ext.A1 sale deed was on 06.01.1998. The date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was on 15.10.1999, after a period of one year and nine months. Considering this aspect, the court below has found that the value of acquired land has to be fixed at a rate 15% above the amount shown in Ext.A1 document. Thus, the lower court has fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.1,89,375/- per cent. It is to be noted that the court below has calculated the increase in the value of the land at a flat rate of 15%. If the increase in the land value is calculated at cumulative rate on an yearly basis, the amount would be higher. In P **ehlad Ram v. Haryana Urban Development Authority (AIR 2014 SC 793)** , after referring to various decisions, the L.A.A.No.284/2017 11 Apex Court has held that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the property may be accepted unless the State agencies or acquiring authority prove otherwise. 18. Generally, the increase in land prices would depend on the situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the locality and the demand for land in the locality. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster and where the demand for land is very high, escalation in the market price of the land would be at a higher rate. There cannot be any doubt with regard to the fact that Guruvayoor is a place where there is scarcity of land for sale but it is a place where demand for land is high. As noticed earlier, the property acquired is located in the close vicinity of the Guruvayoor Temple, in a commercially important area. There can be no doubt with regard to the fact that, at such a place, escalation of market price of land would be at a higher rate. Considering these aspects, we find that the L.A.A.No.284/2017 12 lower court has not erred in calculating the value of the acquired land at Rs.1,89,375/- per cent. 19. The enhancement of compensation granted by the reference court in respect of the structures in the property is only nominal. We see no sufficient ground to interfere with the enhancement of compensation granted by the lower court in that regard. 20. The reference court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent for severance of land and injurious affection of property. The owner of the property acquired is a company by name M/s.Sameeksha House and Home Private Limited. The acquisition of a part of the property owned by the company took place when it was proceeding with an apartment construction project in the property. After acquisition, the extent of property remained with the company is 43 cents. The company had taken loan from the second respondent bank and the third respondent Corporation for the building construction project. The property acquired had been mortgaged with the second and the third respondents. On account of acquisition of L.A.A.No.284/2017 13 only a portion of the property, the first respondent company could not repay the loan amounts and the aforesaid institutions had initiated proceedings for recovery of loan from the company. The company had to abandon the building construction project midway resulting in huge loss. The balance property with the first respondent could not be utilised for completing the project. Considering these aspects, we find that the amount of Rs.10,000/- per cent awarded by the reference court as compensation for severance of land and injurious affection, does not warrant interference in appeal. 21. The discussion above leads to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. No costs. (sd/-) ## **V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE** (sd/-) ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr/12/12/2018 True Copy PS to Judge