IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA App No. 768 of 2005()
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. PARI ANEESUFAHMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC
For Respondent :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :02/04/2008
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
L.A.A.Nos. 768, 805, 816,
825 & 924 OF 2005
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.
The second respondent in L.A.R.No.151 of 1999 and
L.A.R.Nos. 19, 28, 32 and 47 of 2000 is the appellant in all the
five cases, jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment
dated 30.11.2004. The acquired properties in the above
reference cases belonged to different parties. Different parcels
of land belonging to them are acquired for the purpose of setting
up an Industrial Growth Centre. Section 4(1) notification was
published on 14.09.1995. The properties are categorized as
categories A to D. The properties covered by these reference
cases are included in category D.
2. Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.2,940/- per cent,
which was enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per cent by the reference
court. The second respondent-requisitioning authority has filed
these appeals challenging the quantum fixed by the reference
court. According to them, the land value fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer was in accordance with the market value
L.A.A.768/05 & conn. cases 2
prevailing during the relevant time and after perusing the
documents relating to similar properties, and therefore
interference by the reference court without any materials is
illegal. The court below also committed grave error in relying on
Exhibit A3 sale deed which is not similar and similarly situated
with that of the acquired land.
3. In support of the claim for enhanced compensation,
claimants examined AW1 to AW5 and produced Exhibits A1 to A7.
The respondents examined one witness as RW1 and also
produced Exhibits B1 to B5 documents. Commission report is
marked as Exhibit C1.
4. The court below after discussing the relevancy of
Exhibits A1 to A7 documents, took the view that Exhibits A1, A2
and A4 to A7 documents produced by the claimants in support of
their claim for enhanced compensation are not similar and
similarly situated properties and therefore, no reliance can be
placed on them. The court below placed reliance on Exhibit A3
sale deed. The said transaction took place in the year 1987 and
the property is valued at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per cent. The
extent of the property is only 7 cents. Therefore, the court below
refixed the value of that property by reducing 20% from the price
L.A.A.768/05 & conn. cases 3
shown in the document. Thus the reference court refixed the
value of Exhibit A3 property at the rate of Rs.2,800/- per cent.
Then the reference court finding that Section 4(1) notification is
of the year 1995, that is after 8= years, increased the land value
at the rate of 5% per annum which according to the court is
reasonable for the purpose of fixation of market value of the
acquired land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. Thus a
total increase of 42.5% for 8= years has to be added in order to
arrive at the market value per cent at Rs.4,000/-.
5. As stated earlier, the value fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer at the rate of Rs.2,940/- was enhanced by the reference
court and refixed at Rs.4,000/-. The increase in land value
granted by the reference court itself is at the bottom-end,
therefore, reasonable and just. We find no merit in the appeals.
Therefore, the appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as
to cost.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that
the reference court has awarded enhancement in land value for
the entire extent of the land and the area covered by
improvements has not been deducted. The judgment under
appeal does not discuss these matters. It is also submitted that
L.A.A.768/05 & conn. cases 4
the Land Acquisition Officer excluded the area covered by
improvements and limited compensation to the remaining extent.
It is made clear that the enhanced land value at the rate of
Rs.4,000/- per cent will be limited to the area for which
compensation has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer
on centage basis.
All the interlocutory applications for stay are dismissed.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.
smp
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ
L.A.A.Nos. 768, 805, 816,
825 & 924 OF 2005
J U D G M E N T
02.04.2008