IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 340 of 2009()
1. MANOJ, S/O.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 39,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :16/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------------------
L.A.A. Nos.340, 382, 384, 385, 448 & 449 of 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Pius C.Kuriakose,J.
The claimants are the appellants. Their lands in
Pallippuram Village were acquired by the Government at the
instance of the 2nd respondent Power Grid Corporation of India for
the purpose of construction of 400 KV Substation and for other
ancillary purposes. The lands involved in these appeals were
included in two different categories. For the properties in
LAR.No.9/2003, corresponding to LAA.No.340/2009, the Land
Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12,227
per Are. For properties in all other cases he awarded value at the
rate of Rs.11,115/- per Are. Before the reference court the
claimants placed reliance mainly on Ext.A4 sale deed. Ext.A4 was
executed on 27.5.2000, a few months prior to the promulgation of
the relevant Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A4 reflected a land
value of Rs.30,000/- per cent. The contention of the respondents
as regards Ext.A4 was that Ext.A4 was an artificial document
brought into existence by the claimants in anticipation of the land
acquisition proceedings for the purpose of staking a higher claim
before the authorities. In fact, the L.A Officer had initially
LAA.340/09 and connected cases 2
recommended higher amounts to be awarded based on Ext.A4
stating however that the price shown in Ext.A4 is a fancy price.
District Collector did not accept the recommendation of the L.A
Officer. District Collector chose the basis document for
determining market value and fixed market value as indicated
above.
2. Evidence before the learned Sub Judge apart from
Ext.A4 consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, A5, A6, R1 and R2 and oral
evidence of AW1 and RW1. The learned Sub Judge did not
become inclined to place reliance on Ext.A4. However, it was
noticed by the learned Sub Judge that the properties under
acquisition were enjoying the frontage of Pallippuram-
Andoorkonam public road, that the locality was important as the
same is situated within a distance of 2 km from Techno Park and
at a distance of 100 metres away from the NH-47. It was also
noticed that though in the revenue records the properties are
shown as wet lands, most of the properties had been reclaimed
and substantial improvements have been raised on the same by
the parties concerned. On the basis of those circumstances which
are shown by the Sub Judge under the impugned judgment as plus
points enjoyed by the properties, the learned Sub Judge came to
the conclusion that the value fixed by the L.A Officer is
inadequate and would re-fix the value by giving an enhancement
of 20% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
LAA.340/09 and connected cases 3
Thus, for the properties relating to LAA.No.344/2009, value was
fixed at Rs.14,672/- per Are while for the properties involved in
other cases, value was fixed at Rs.13,338/- per Are.
3. In these appeals, the claimants have raised various
grounds assailing the judgment of the learned Sub Judge. It is
argued that the court below went wrong in not relying on Ext.A4;
that the L.A Officer himself having relied on Ext.A4 for making his
initial recommendations did not have a case that Ext.A4 was an
artificial document brought into existence with oblique motives,
what the L.A Officer has stated is that price for Ext.A4 is a fancy
price and nothing more; and that based on Ext.A4 the market
value be re-fixed at least at Rs.10,000/- per cent corresponding to
Rs.24,700/- per Are.
4. We have heard the submissions of Sri.J.S. Ajithkumar,
learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.Millu
Dandapani, learned standing counsel for the requisitioning
authority. We have also heard the submissions of Smt.Latha
T.Thankappan, learned Senior Government Pleader, who
supported Mr.Millu Dandapani in all his submissions.
Mr.Ajithkumar drew our attention to Ext.A4 and to the impugned
judgment. He submitted that there was no justifiable reason for
the learned Sub Judge to have discarded Ext.A4 from the
reckoning. Ext.A4 is clearly a pre-notification document.
Proposal if any submitted by the requisitioning authority to the
LAA.340/09 and connected cases 4
Government is not a published document and people come to
know about L.A proceedings only when official notification under
Section 4(1) is issued. Ext.A4 is much earlier to the promulgation
of such official notification. The L.A. Officer had in fact relied on
Ext.A4 in his award to a certain extent for making initial
recommendation. He had not entered a finding that Ext.A4 is an
artificial document. Drawing our attention to the findings by the
learned Sub Judge regarding the nature of the property, its
locational advantages, nearness to various institutions including
Techno Park and NH-47, Mr.Ajithkumar submitted that the rate
presently awarded is ridiculously low. Mr.Ajithkumar drew our
attention to the judgment of the very same court in
LAR.No.13/2003 wherein relying on the very Ext.A4 another
learned Judge has re-fixed the value of land, for which the Land
Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs.11,115/- per Are, at
Rs.25,000/- per Are. He requested that, that rate be adopted and
appeal be allowed in full.
5. All the submissions of Mr.Ajithkumar were resisted by
Mr.Millu Dandapani, who supported the impugned judgment on
the various reasons stated therein. According to him, the finding
that Ext.A4 has been brought into existence with oblique motives
is a finding correctly entered into by the learned Sub Judge on
appreciating evidence. There is no warrant for upsetting that
finding. Once Ext.A4 is excluded from consideration what
LAA.340/09 and connected cases 5
remains is only oral evidence of the parties. Based on oral
evidence, nothing more than enhancement presently granted, i.e.
20%, can be legitimately granted. According to him, all the
properties were wet lands and at any rate there is no comparison
between these properties and the properties covered by Ext.A4.
Counsel requested that the award of the reference court be
confirmed by dismissing the appeals.
6. We have very anxiously considered the rival
submissions addressed at the bar. We have gone through the
impugned judgment. We have also appreciated those items of
evidence to which our attention was drawn by the counsel in their
submissions. 7. We do not think that the learned Sub Judge
was justified in rejecting Ext.A4 completely on the reason that the
same is an artificial document brought into existence by the
parties for the purpose of staking a higher claim for land value in
the prospective land acquisition proceedings. It should be
remembered that Ext.A4 was considered by the L.A Officer during
the award enquiry and he did not become inclined to recommend
for the full value reflected in Ext.A4 (Rs.75,000/- per Are) for the
reason that the price shown in Ext.A4 is a fancy price. Just
because the parties agreed to pay and receive a fancy price, it
cannot be concluded that the document is an artificial one
brought into existence with oblique motives. Purchasers become
inclined to pay fancy price when they are keen of purchasing a
LAA.340/09 and connected cases 6
particular item of property. In the instant case, even as we
disagree with the learned Sub Judge in his finding that Ext.A4 is
an artificial document, we agree with the L.A Officer and the
District Collector in their view that it is a fancy price that is seen
paid under Ext.A4. Once Ext.A4 is excluded from the
consideration, the available evidence is the oral evidence of
parties and Ext.R1 & R2. Ext.R1 is the notes to award and R2 is a
sketch. It is on appreciating Exts.R1 & R2 and the oral evidence
of RW1 that the learned Sub Judge concluded that the property
under acquisition was enjoying several plus factors narrated by
him in the judgment. It has been clearly found that these
properties were enjoying direct frontage of Pallippuram-
Andoorkonam public road. It has also been found that the
distance from these properties to the NH-47 was 100 m. It was
not disputed that from Techno Park campus the distance to these
properties was below 2 km. It is also found that these properties
were at the relevant time under the process of reclamation. We
feel that based on these plus factors actually found by the learned
Sub Judge, he could have awarded more enhancement to the
appellants. Re-appreciating the evidence and making an
assessment, which in our opinion is better than the one done by
the learned Sub Judge, we re-fix value of land for which the
reference court awarded value at the rate of Rs.14,672/- per Are
at Rs.17,800/- per Are. Similarly for those lands for which the
LAA.340/09 and connected cases 7
reference court awarded value at the rate of Rs.13,338/- per Are,
we re-fix at Rs.16,200/- per Are. In other words, the values
awarded by the L.A Officer at the rate of Rs.11,227/- per Are and
Rs.11,115/- per Are will stand re-fixed respectively at Rs.17,800/-
per Are and Rs.16,200/- per Are.
Appeals are allowed as above. The appellants will be
entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A),
23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the
Section while drafting decree will have due regard to the
condition imposed by us for condoning the delay caused in
instituting the appeals. Parties are directed to suffer their costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb
LAA.340/09 and connected cases 8
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
----------------------------------
L.A.A. No.340 of 2009
----------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
Pius C.Kuriakose,J.
It is submitted by learned senior Government
Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji that the order dt.19.3.2009 has not
yet been complied with by the appellant. No representation
for appellant. Appeal is dismissed for default.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb