IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA App No. 32 of 2004()
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. D.SANTHAMMA,
... Respondent
2. S.D.SONYDATH,
3. S.D.PREMDATH,
4. CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :20/09/2007
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
L.A.A.Nos.32 & 64 of 2004
&
Cross Objection 41/2006 in L.A.A.32/04
----------------------------------------------
Dated 20th September, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
Kurian Joseph, J.
These are appeals filed by the State as well as the
requisitioning authority, against the judgment and decree in
L.A.R.95/95 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. There is also
a cross objection by the claimants against the said judgment.
The acquisition is for the purpose of setting up a shopping
complex for the Cherthala Municipality, the requisitioning
authority. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 3.5.1991. The
land was taken possession on 12.5.1994. There is no serious
dispute that the property is situated at a prime location. Of the
entire extent of 43.63 Ares, a major portion is abutting the
Ernakulam-Alappuzha National Highway. The rest of the
property has only Municipal road access. Therefore, the property
was categorized into three. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded
Rs.14,854/- for ‘A’ category, Rs.9,814/- for ‘B’ category and
Rs.5,958/- for the ‘C’ category. An extent of 50 cents is in ‘A’
category, 33 cents in ‘B’ category and 26 cents in ‘C’ category.
LAA Nos.32 & 64/04 2
Before the reference court, the claimants relied on Exts.A1 to A6
documents. A Commission also was taken and Ext.X1 is the
commission report. Aws.1 and 2 were examined. There is no
evidence for the respondents. The basic document also was not
produced. Ext.A1 is a document of 1991, Exts.A2 to A5 are of
1984 and Ext.A6 is of 1995. As far as Exts.A1 to A5 are
concerned, it was rightly noticed by the reference court that
those are transactions pertaining to small extent of land used for
commercial purposes. Ext.A1 is executed within a month of the
notification. It pertains to transaction of 6 cents of land and the
sale consideration is Rs.90,000/-. Exts.A2, A3, A4 and A5 are sale
deeds of 1984. Those are all transactions involving only 2 to 3
cents. The reference court has mainly relied on Ext.A6 sale deed
executed four years after the publication of the notification. That
is in respect of 10 cents of land with a building. The
consideration is Rs.3,60,000/-. Rs.60,000/- has been deducted as
the value of the building and Rs.3 lakhs is taken as value of the
land, i.e., Rs.30,000/- per cent. Taking note of the fact that the
same is a post notification document and the extent is only 10
cents, one third has been deducted and the centage value has
been fixed as Rs.20,000/-. In view of the comparable nature of
LAA Nos.32 & 64/04 3
the transaction in Ext.A1, where the land value is Rs.15,000/- per
cent, executed at the time of Section 4(1) notification, it cannot
be said that the land value fixed by the reference court is on the
high side, particularly taking note of the fact that Ext.A1 did not
have the road frontage.
2. Learned Government Pleader as well as learned
counsel appearing for the Municipality contends that since the
claimants did not have any dispute with regard to the
categorization of land into three, proportionate to the importance
of the extent involved, the reference court erred in applying the
uniform value of Rs.49,400/- per Are in respect of the entire
extent. We find force in the submission. Admittedly, for the
purpose of fixation of land value, the Land Acquisition Officer
himself had categorized the property into three, for which the
claimants did not have serious objection. In view of the value
fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the three categories
(Rs.14,854/- for ‘A’ category, Rs.9,814/- for ‘B’ category and
Rs.5,958/- for the ‘C’ category), we are of the view that a proper
fixation of the land value can be made and has to be made by
maintaining Rs.49,400/- per Are for A category, by reducing one
third from ‘A’ category and fixing the same as the value of ‘B’
LAA Nos.32 & 64/04 4
and by reducing two third from ‘A’ category and fixing the same
as the value of ‘C’ category, following the same pattern.
3. Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for
the Cross Objector submits that the claimants are entitled to have
the land value fixed at the rate of Ext.A6 document since
admittedly in respect of Exts.A2 to A5 transactions, the valuation
is Rs.24,000/- per cent. As we have already noted, Exts.A2 to A5
transactions are in respect of smaller extent of land, purely for
commercial purposes. The advantage of the location is also to be
taken note in respect of such small extent of property. In the
instant case, though situated slightly far from Exts.A2 to A5, the
land value has been sustained at Rs.20,000/- per cent. It has to
be noted that even for Ext.A6 document produced by the
appellant, a transaction made after four years of the notification,
the value is only Rs.30,000/- per cent, even assuming the
building can be valued at Rs.60,000/-. Though a Commission is
taken at the instance of the claimant, there is nothing in the
report of the Commission indicating the land value. Therefore, on
the basis of the evidence available in the case, it cannot be said
that the claimants are entitled to have the land value fixed at the
rate of Exts.A2 to A6. Accordingly, we partly allow the appeals
LAA Nos.32 & 64/04 5
filed by the State and the requisitioning authority. We hold that
the respondents/claimants will be entitled to have the land value
at Rs.49,400/- per Are for ‘A’ category, two third of Rs.49,400/-
per Are for ‘B’ category and one third of Rs.49,400/- per Are for
‘C’ category. The claimants will also be entitled to all eligible
statutory benefits including interest on solatium. The appeals are
allowed as above and the Cross Objection is dismissed.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.
tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ
———————————————-
L.A.A. NO. OF 200
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 20th September, 2007.