IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 234 of 2006()
1. THE ADMINISTRATOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BALASUBRAMANIAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN,
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSIDLAR (LA),
For Petitioner :SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR,SC,GURUVAYUR D.B
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :24/09/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.234 of 2006, L.A.A. No.258
of 2006 & Cross Objection No.21 of
2007, and L.A.A. No.272 of 2006 &
Cross Objection No.24 of 2007
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
These appeals are preferred by the Requisitioning
Authority/The Administrator Guruvayoor Devaswom.
The acquisition was for the purpose of Elephant
Sanctuary at Punnathur Kotta in Perakom village of
Chavakkad taluk. The Land Acquisition Officer
categorised the lands under acquisition into five.
Properties having direct frontage of the public PWD
road were included in category-A and they were
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13793/- per cent.
Properties in category-B were lands having frontage of
L. A. A. No.234 of 2006 & con. cases -2-
less important roads and were awarded land value at
the rate of Rs.13413/- per cent. We need not be
concerned in these cases with properties in category C
and D. properties in category-E were properties
which were lying as ‘thodu’ and for properties in this
category the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land
value at the rate of Rs.3354/- per cent. The Reference
Court on the basis of the evidence which were
adduced by parties, re-fixed the value of all the lands
under acquisition uniformly at Rs.18237/- per cent.
Apart from challenging the re-fixation of market value
by the Reference Court as excessive, the appellants
contend that the court below was not at all justified in
awarding a uniform rate for properties under
acquisition ignoring the categorisation made by the
L. A. A. No.234 of 2006 & con. cases -3-
Land Acquisition Officer completely. In the
memorandum of Cross Objections filed by the
respondents in L.A.A.272/06 (C.O.24/07) and in
L.A.A.258/06 (C.O.21/07), the Cross Objectors/
claimants contend that Exts.A1 to A3 produced by
them should have been followed and the court below
should have awarded much higher amounts by re-
fixing the market value of lands at far above what is
presently fixed. However, in the Cross Objections, they
are limiting their claims for enhancement at
Rs.1,000/- per cent.
2. Having heard the submissions of
Mr.N.Rajagopalan Nair, the Standing Counsel for the
Requisitioning Authority and those of by
Sri.V.Chitambaresh, the Senior Counsel for claimants
L. A. A. No.234 of 2006 & con. cases -4-
and having made a re-appraisal of the evidence
available on record, we are in agreement with
Sri.Rajagopalan Nair in his submission that the
Reference Court was not justified in completely doing
away with the categorization adopted by the Land
Acquisition Officer. When acquisition of land in large
scale is resorted to belting or categorization method is
recognized and in this case, according to us, there was
justification for categorizing the lands on the basis of
proximity to the main thoroughfare and also the
nature of the lands. In other words, according to us,
the value of properties which were included in
category-E could not have been more than 25% of
value of properties included in category-B. But our
own re-appraisal of the evidence, we feel that the
L. A. A. No.234 of 2006 & con. cases -5-
learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in re-
fixing the value of the properties under category-B at
the rates granted now. On a better assessment of the
market value of those properties, the same can be re-
fixed at Rs.19,000/-. Thus, in modification of the
judgment of the Reference Court, we re-fix the value
of the properties for which the claimants in L.A.A
Nos.272/06 and 258/06 were awarded land value at
the rate of Rs.13413/- per cent by the Land
Acquisition Officer, at Rs.19,000/- per cent. But the
value of the properties included in category-E for
which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value
at the rate of Rs.3354/- per cent, the value will stand
reduced to Rs.4750/- per cent. It is accordingly,
ordered.
L. A. A. No.234 of 2006 & con. cases -6-
3. The result is that all these appeals and the
cross objections stand allowed. It is made clear that
on the total enhanced compensation to which the
Cross Objectors/claimants become eligible by virtue of
this judgment, they will be entitled for all statutory
benefits. Parties are directed to suffer their costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGEK. SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
kns/-