IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 716 of 2004()
1. PUTHIYAKATHU MOIDEENKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
... Respondent
2. THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :07/09/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L.A.A. NOS: 716/2004, 105, 120,123,124,
176, 284, 655 & 656 OF 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
L.A.A Nos: 176/2005 & 716/2004 are instituted by the
claimant who is not satisfied by the award passed by the Reference
Court in LAR No: 90/1997. L.A.A.176/2005 is prepared by the
requisitioning authority against the award passed by the reference
court in L.A.R.90/97. All the other appeals are by the requistioning
authority and they are directed against the awards in the connected
Land Acquisition Reference cases. All these appeals pertain to
acquisition of lands in Nediyiruppu village for the expansion of the
run way of the Calicut Airport. The acquisitions were pursuant to a
notification under Section 4(1) published on 15.11.1993. The Land
Acquistion Officer included the properties under acquistion in these
cases in category 6 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6916/-
per cent. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence which
constituted all the oral testimonies of A.Ws 1 to 4 and Exts.A1 to
A8 were marked on the side of the claimants and testimonies of
R.W.1 and Ext.B1 basis document on the side of the respondents
L.A.A.716/2004 etc. 2
(Government and the Requisitioning Authority). Apart from the
Commissioner’s report Exts.C1 to C6 in those of the cases decided
under the common judgment would refix the land value of the
properties under acquisition at Rs.10,000/- per cent. The
requisitioning authority challenges the enhancement granted by the
reference court as excessive, the appellant in L.A.A.716/2004
challenges the same as inadequate.
2. Shri. N.N.Sugunapalan, senior counsel appears for the
Calicut Airport Authority and Adv Shri. Babu S. Nair, learned counsel
for the appellant in L.A.A.716/2004 have addressed us very
strenuously and extensively. It was argued by Adv. Shri. Babu
S.Nair that the rejection of Ext.A1 sale document by the Reference
Court was not justified. According to the learned counsel Ext.A1
revealed land value of Rs.24,000/-. The learned counsel submitted
that even based on Ext.B1 the basis document there was
justification for awarding more than the rates presently awarded.
Ext.A1 property, according to the learned counsel was found by the
reference court to be inferior to the properties under acquisition.
Ext.A1 property was a quarry lying at a distance of 6 to 8 feet from
the road level. The properties under acquisition were pucca garden
lands. Mr.Babu S. Nair submitted that the properties under
L.A.A.716/2004 etc. 3
acquisition were enjoying access to roads as reported by the
Advocate Commissioner. The distance to main road was not much.
Learned Counsel submitted that in earlier acquisitions pursuant to
earlier notifications under Section 4(1) for the same purpose the
court below has refixed the value at higher rates and on account of
the emergencies of the Airport the value of the present property
should have been fixed at higher than those values.
3. Adv. Shri. N.N.Sugunapalan, counsel for the requisitioning
authority however, would assail the award of the learned Sub Judge
as excessive. According to him there was no justification for
awarding anything more than 40% than what was awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer. The adoption of the belting system which
is adopted, is approved by this Court and by the Supreme Courts.
The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Ext.B1 property was
enjoying road frontage of the National Highway whereas the
property under acquisition is category 6 situated far away from the
National Highway. The Commissioner’s report was not acceptable.
The Commissioner has at any rate not reported that the properties
were enjoying direct road frontage.
4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions
addressed at the Bar. We have also considered those items of
L.A.A.716/2004 etc. 4
evidence to which our attention was drawn by Adv Shri Babu S. Nair
and the learned senior counsel. We are of the view that the
finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the properties under
acquisition were superior in quality to the property covered by
Ext.B1 is a finding which can be approved. At the same time, we
are in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge that in terms
of market value Ext. B1 property was more valuable than the
properties under acquisition. But we notice that Ext.B1 was
executed more than one year prior to the relevant Section 4(1)
notification in this case. We feel that the market value of Ext.B1
property at the time of the present acquisition should have been at
least Rs.12,000/- per cent. This aspect of the matter it appears to
us has not been taken note of by the Learned Subordinate Judge.
We feel that if this aspect is also taken note of, the market value of
the properties under acquisition could have been fixed at a better
assessment at Rs.10,500/- per cent.
5. The result of the above discussion is that L.A.A.716/2004
will stand allowed to the extent of refixing their market value of the
lands under acquisition at Rs.10,500/- per cent. The appeal will
stand allowed without any order as to costs.
6. All the other appeals will stand dismissed confirming the
L.A.A.716/2004 etc. 5
decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. It is needless to
mention that the total enhanced compensation to which the
claimants including the appellant in L.A.A.716/2004 become
entitled to by virtue of this judgment will carry all statutory
benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquistion
Act. It is made clear that the appellant in L.A.A No: 716/2004
alone will be entitled for the refixation of market value made under
this judgment.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Judge
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
—————————————
L.A.A.NO:
—————————————
JUDGMENT
Dated: