IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 107 of 2007(B)
1. SAINA BEEVI, D/O.SAFEDA BEEVI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.KOSHY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :17/09/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------
LAA. Nos. 107, 209, 876, 305, 510, 1073, 1341, 1363,
1364, 1386 & 1387 of 2007, 1741, 1742, 1750 & 1751 of
2008, & 539, 620 & 644 of 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
All these appeals are preferred by claimants who are
dissatisfied by the re-determination of compensation for
their lands under acquisition by the Subordinate Judge’s
Court, Pathanamthitta. The properties were in
Enadimangalam Village of Adoor Taluk. The purpose of the
acquisition was establishment of a Food Processing Park for
KINFRA, the 2nd respondent. The relevant Section 4(1)
notification was published on 19-12-2003. The Land
Acquisition Officer categorized the lands under acquisition
into four. Included in category No.1 where important lands
having direct frontage of Panchayat Road, for these
properties the L.A.Officer awarded land value at the rate of
Rs.4600/- per Are. Included in category 2 where properties
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-2-
enjoying direct frontage of estate road, for these properties
the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,400/-
per Are. Included in category No. 3 where properties
having access through G-plots only, for these properties the
L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4200/- per
Are. Included in the 4th category where lands without any
road frontage and for these properties the L.A. Officer
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4000/- per Are. The
learned Subordinate Judge under the various judgments
which are impugned in these appeals re-fixed the value of
lands included in category- 1 at Rs.10,000/- per Are
evaluating the evidence which was adduced by the parties.
Similarly the value of lands included in category Nos. 2,3
and 4 were respectively re-fixed at Rs.8000/- per Are,
Rs.7000/- per Are and Rs.6000/- per Are. According to the
appellants the enhancement granted is grossly inadequate.
Many of the appellants have raised a grievance that the
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-3-
courts below did not award any enhancement towards the
value of the improvements which existed upon the
properties under acquisition. The improvements were
mostly rubber trees. The appellants point out that in LAA.
Nos. 1073/07, 644/09 and 620/09 corresponding to LAR.
Nos. 13/04, 64/05 & 66/05, considerable enhancement was
granted by the reference court towards value of
improvements. According to the appellants, the court below
having granted enhancement in those cases towards value
of improvements was not at all justified in disallowing any
enhancement towards value of improvements in the other
cases.
2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.T.K.Koshy,
learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.G.S.Reghunath,
learned counsel for the requisitioning authority and the
learned senior Govt. Pleader Mr. P.K.Babu.
3. Mr.Koshy would argue that the court below has
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-4-
excluded relevant evidence adduced by the claimants from
consideration while fixing market value of the lands under
acquisition. According to him, under Ext.A6 common
judgment the very same court had re-fixed land value at
Rs.16,426/- per Are. According to him, the lands involved in
Ext.A6 and the lands under acquisition in these cases were
similarly situated and had several potentialities and
improvements. He would further argue that grave injustice
has been caused to the appellants in that they were not
awarded any enhancement towards value of improvements.
Attention was drawn by him to those judgments where the
court below had awarded considerable increase towards
value of improvements. Sri.G.S.Reghunath per contra
would oppose all the submissions of Mr.Koshy. According to
him Ext.A6 judgment could not have been a basis since that
was in respect of acquisition pursuant to a different
notification. He would also submit that the properties
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-5-
covered by Ext.A6 were superior in the sense that even in
1996 a much higher value than what is awarded by the L.A.
Officer in 2003 to the properties under acquisition in these
cases had been awarded. According to Mr.Reghunath, there
is no warrant for granting any further enhancement to the
claimants. Meeting the argument that the court below had
adopted different standards in the matter of awarding
enhancement towards value of improvements Mr.Reghunath
submitted that the additional value of improvements has
been awarded only in cases where there was evidence in the
form of acceptable commission reports. The claimants in
those cases where there is no acceptable commission report
cannot aspire for award of more value towards value of
improvements.
4. Mr.Reghunath also referred to LAA. Nos. 510/07,
1073/07, 1742/08 and 1341/07. He pointed out that those
were all cases involving more than 1 hectare of land. Citing
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-6-
the judgments of the Supreme Court in Haryana State
Electricity Board and another v. Maha Singh and another
(AIR 1997 SC 2553), Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi v.
Mrudula Jyothi Rao and others (AIR 2007 SC 614) and
Gajjan Singh and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC
2417) Mr. Reghunath submitted that the acquisition in the
above appeals will have to be treated as whole sale
acquisition and therefore the market value which is being
awarded in other case involving small extent – retail
acquisition cannot be awarded. According to him in whole
sale acquisition at least 20% of the total price determined
by this court towards market value of land should be
deducted. The learned senior Govt. Pleader would support
all the submissions of Mr.Reghunath. According to him,
there is no warrant at all for interference in the impugned
judgment.
5. We have very anxiously considered the rival
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-7-
submissions addressed at the Bar. We are unable to accept
the argument of Mr.Koshy that Ext.A6 judgment ought to
have been followed and the enhancement of the market
value granted under Ext.A6 should have been fixed for the
properties under acquisition included in category- 1. A6 was
not an acquisition pursuant to the very same notification or
for the same purposes. It has come out in evidence that A6
property unlike the properties under acquisition were
situated within Adoor Municipality and that A6 properties
were enjoying the direct frontage of Kodumon – Parakode
PWD Road. It is apparent that A6 properties were far
superior to the properties under acquisition since even in
1988 when A6 properties were acquired for the purpose of
Water Authority the acquisition officer had awarded much
higher value to those properties than the value awarded to
properties in category-1 in these cases. According to us, the
learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in not
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-8-
placing reliance on Ext.A1.
6. If Ext.A6 is eschewed, then the tangible evidence
available before the learned Subordinate Judge for fixing
market value of the properties under acquisition was the
basis document, oral evidence of the claimants and the
reports of the Commissioner available in some of the cases
which were to the effect that the properties were situated in
a relatively important locality. To the oral evidence adduced
by the claimants, counter evidence was not adduced in most
of the cases. It is evaluating the oral evidence and the
evidence other than Ext.A6 that the learned Subordinate
Judge fixed the market value of the lands in all these cases.
7. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence and we
feel that on a better assessment based on the evidence
available in these cases other than Ext.A6 the market value
of the lands under acquisition can be re-fixed in the
following manner:
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-9-
Category - 1 : Rs.11,000/- per Are
Category - 2 : Rs.8,800/- per Are
Category - 3 : Rs.7,500/- per Are
Category - 4 : Rs.6,400/- per Are
Accordingly, in modification of the awards passed by the
reference court we re-fix the market value of the lands
which were included in category No. 1 by the L.A. Officer
(lands for which the L.A. Officer awarded Rs.10,000/- per
Are) at Rs.11,000/- per Are. Similarly, for properties of
category No.2 (for which L.A. Officer awarded Rs.8000/-
per Are) we award Rs.8,800/- per Are. For category Nos.3
and 4 (for which L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rates
Rs.7000/- and Rs.6000/- respectively per Are) we re-fix at
the rate of Rs.7,500/- per Are and Rs.6,400/- per Are.
8. We notice elements of genuineness in the grievance
voiced by those claimants who were not awarded any
enhancement by the reference court towards value of
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-10-
improvements. May be, it is true that in cases other than
the cases covered by LAA. Nos. 1073/07, 644/09 and
620/09 (LAR numbers respectively 13/04, 64/05 and 66/05)
there was no good evidence to grant enhancement towards
value of improvements. At the same time, it is not seriously
in dispute that the nature of improvements in these
properties were somewhat similar to the nature of
improvements in the other cases. Rubber trees standing in
these properties were somewhat similar and we feel that
based on the evidence adduced by the claimants uniform
enhancement by 30% over what was awarded by the L.A.
Officer towards value of improvements in his award can be
awarded in all the appeals except LAA. Nos. 1073/07,
644/09 and 620/09. Accordingly, all the appellants other
than appellants in LAA. Nos. 1073/07 644/09 and 620/09,
we award 30% of the amount awarded to those appellants
by the L.A. Officer towards value of improvements as
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-11-
additional compensation towards value of improvements.
9. As noticed already, the cases relating to LAA. Nos.
510/07, 1073/07, 1341/07 and 1742/08 involve acquisition
of more than 1 hectare of land. Following the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 2553, AIR 2007
SC 614 and AIR 1998 SC 2417 the acquisitions in these
cases have to be treated as whole sale acquisition. It is trite
that the whole sale price will be lesser than retail price.
Therefore even as market value of the lands under
acquisition in these appeals are re-determined on the basis
of the rates re-fixed in this judgment, a uniform deduction
of 10% on the total market value of land will be made in
these appeals. But no such deduction need be made from
the compensation awarded towards value of improvements.
All the appeals are allowed as above. It is made clear
that all the appellants will be entitled for statutory benefits
admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land
LAA. N0. 107/07 etc.
-12-
Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which
they will become eligible by virtue of this judgment. No
costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
ksv/-