{"id":30527,"date":"2009-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-24T19:51:18","modified_gmt":"2018-08-24T14:21:18","slug":"muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nLA.App..No. 682 of 2004()\n\n\n1. MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. VARKEY, S\/O. KURUVILLA BABU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. MOLLY, W\/O. VARKEY,\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KURIAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :11\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n           PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n         L.A.A. NOS: 682\/04 & CO11\/05, 175\/04 & CO9\/05,750\/04,\n         718\/04 &CO 33\/05, 763\/04, 630\/04& CO 38\/05, 628\/04,\n             678\/05 & CO 118\/05, 735\/04, 955\/04,141\/05 and\n                                    629\/04 & CO 42\/05\n\n         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                    Dated this the 11th December, 2009.\n\n                                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
SURENDRA MOHAN,<\/p>\n
      An extent of 50.91 Ares (125.74 cents) of land in<\/p>\n
Velloorkunnam Village of Muvattupuzha                                 Taluk comprised in<\/p>\n
different survey numbers                 was acquired by the State,                         on the<\/p>\n
requisitioning of the Muvattupuzha Municipality, for the expansion<\/p>\n
of the Municipal Stadium and formation of a ring road around the<\/p>\n
stadium.     The Section 4(1) notification is dated 6.12.1996.                                The<\/p>\n
Land Acquisition Officer verified various documents relating to<\/p>\n
similar lands executed during the relevant period and fixed the land<\/p>\n
value of the properties. For the purpose, he categorized the lands<\/p>\n
into two categories, those having road access as the first category<\/p>\n
and those without road access as the second category. Relying on<\/p>\n
sale deed No: 4059\/1994 of Muvattupuzha Sub Registry the Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.17,000\/-<\/p>\n
per   Are (Rs.6,880 per cent) to the lands in category I and<\/p>\n
Rs.15,400\/- per Are (6,232 per cent) to the lands in category II,<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
those without road access.       Dissatisfied with the land value<\/p>\n
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer the claimants sought a<\/p>\n
reference to the Court and thus the matter was referred to the Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Muvattupuzha,      for considering the claim for enhanced<\/p>\n
compensation made by the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Before the Reference Court the claimants adduced<\/p>\n
evidence in support of their claims.     The evidence in the case<\/p>\n
consists of the oral evidence of A.Ws 1 to 5 and Exts. A1 to A9<\/p>\n
documents on the side of the claimants.          On the side of the<\/p>\n
respondents, Exts. R1 to R17 documents were marked and R.W.1<\/p>\n
was examined as a witness. Exts. C1 commission report and C1(a)<\/p>\n
plan have been marked as Court Exhibits.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   After an evaluation of the evidence on record, the Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Muvattupuzha       as per a common judgment dated<\/p>\n
31.10.2003 enhanced and fixed the land value of the acquired<\/p>\n
properties at a uniform rate of Rs.60,000\/- per Are (Rs.24,282 per<\/p>\n
cent). The Court thus did away with the categorization adopted by<\/p>\n
the Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Court took note of the<\/p>\n
fact that the acquired properties were all lying in close proximity to<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
the properties covered by Exts. A1 to A4, A7 & A8 sale deeds.<\/p>\n
Though the     records described the properties as wet lands, the<\/p>\n
Reference Court, on the basis of the      report   of the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner found that the lands were dry lands with the only<\/p>\n
disadvantage that they were lying at levels substantially lower than<\/p>\n
the road. The lands were also found to be barren. However, the<\/p>\n
properties were found to enjoy locational advantages by virtue of<\/p>\n
their proximity to all the important establishments in the<\/p>\n
Muvattupuzha Municipality. The Muvattupuzha Municipality which<\/p>\n
is the Requisitioning Authority has preferred appeals against the<\/p>\n
common judgment of the Reference Court contending that the<\/p>\n
award was excessive. The Government has also preferred separate<\/p>\n
appeals against the said judgment. The claimants have preferred<\/p>\n
cross objections contending that the enhanced land value granted<\/p>\n
by the reference Court also did not reflect the real market value of<\/p>\n
the acquired properties. They have claimed land value at the rate<\/p>\n
of Rs.2,00,000\/- per cent. All the appeals and cross objections are<\/p>\n
considered together for the reason that the questions that arise for<\/p>\n
determination are all same.\n<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
      4.   As per order dated 31.3.2009 in I.A.1219 of 2009 in<\/p>\n
L.A.A.NO: 682 of 2004 an Advocate Commissioner was appointed<\/p>\n
from this Court to make a local inspection of the properties<\/p>\n
acquired in these appeals and to make a comparison of the said<\/p>\n
properties with the properties acquired as per Exts. A7 and A8<\/p>\n
proceedings. Accordingly an Advocate Commissioner conducted a<\/p>\n
local inspection on 6.4.2009 and has submitted a report, supported<\/p>\n
by rough sketch of the properties that were compared. The said<\/p>\n
Commission report and the plan are received in evidence and are<\/p>\n
marked as Exts. C2 and C2(a) respectively. Exts. C2 and C2(a) also<\/p>\n
endorse the locational importance of the acquired properties.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, it is reported that the acquired properties are lying at<\/p>\n
substantially lower levels than the main road.       The properties<\/p>\n
acquired as per Exts. A7 and A8 are also reported to be not similar<\/p>\n
to the acquired properties. Exts. A7 and A8 properties are found<\/p>\n
by the Commissioner to be enjoying better advantages than the<\/p>\n
acquired properties.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The learned Senior Govt. Pleader as well as the counsel for<\/p>\n
the Municipality attacked the findings of the Reference Court<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                5<\/span><\/p>\n
contending that the Reference Court seriously erred in discarding<\/p>\n
the categorization adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that the lands acquired are all `Nilam’ or paddy fields<\/p>\n
according to the records.   They are all properties which remain<\/p>\n
submerged during rainy season. According to the counsel they are<\/p>\n
lying barren only for the reason that paddy cultivation has been<\/p>\n
discontinued by the owners during the recent past. It is contended<\/p>\n
that the properties being 10 to 12 ft. below the road level did not<\/p>\n
possess any road access at all though they were by the side of the<\/p>\n
road.   Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds are attacked by the counsel<\/p>\n
pointing out that they were both post notification documents. The<\/p>\n
properties covered by Exts. A3 & A4 sale deeds according to the<\/p>\n
counsel were not comparable to the acquired property, since they<\/p>\n
were both garden lands facing the National Highway. According to<\/p>\n
the counsel the sale deed that was the subject matter of Ext.A6<\/p>\n
order of this Court in C.M.A.5\/2000 was not produced before the<\/p>\n
reference Court.    Nor was the agreement for sale produced.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the counsel contended that the Reference Court went<\/p>\n
wrong in placing reliance on the said document. With respect to<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
Exts. A7 and A8 properties, the contention is that they related to<\/p>\n
small bits of land that were acquired by the Municipality for<\/p>\n
constructing the TVS-Keecheripady road .       The said lands were<\/p>\n
located 500 mtrs. away from the acquired property and were not<\/p>\n
comparable properties for the reason that the said properties were<\/p>\n
facing the M.C.Road and located 500 mtrs. away. The counsel,<\/p>\n
therefore, contended that there was no reliable evidence available<\/p>\n
in the case for granting enhanced land value for the acquired<\/p>\n
properties.    Since the burden of proving that they were entitled to<\/p>\n
enhanced land value was entirely on the claimants, they were not<\/p>\n
entitled to any enhancement for the reason that they had not<\/p>\n
discharged the said burden by adducing any acceptable evidence.<\/p>\n
            6.   The counsel for the claimants on the other hand<\/p>\n
contended that the land value awarded by the Reference Court was<\/p>\n
too low. The Reference Court failed to take into account the clear<\/p>\n
and unambiguous data that were available from the evidence<\/p>\n
produced in the case to show that the land value was at least<\/p>\n
Rs.60,000\/- per cent. According to the counsel, Exts.A1 and A2<\/p>\n
sale deeds were documents by which the                Muvattupuzha<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
Municipality itself had purchased properties for a consideration of<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- per cent. The properties according to the claimants are<\/p>\n
only 300 mtrs. away from the acquired property.            Both the<\/p>\n
properties are located in the same village.   The properties covered<\/p>\n
by Exts. A3 and A4 sale deeds relate to a property adjoining the<\/p>\n
acquired land. In the said documents also the consideration shown<\/p>\n
is Rs.50,000\/- per cent. Exts. A7 and A8 are proceedings of the<\/p>\n
Land Acquisition Officer in LAC No: 17\/1998 and connected cases.<\/p>\n
The properties involved in the said cases are 425 Mtrs. away from<\/p>\n
the acquired property. They were acquired for the formation of a<\/p>\n
new road.    The land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer<\/p>\n
for the acquired land was Rs.1,00,576\/- per Are which corresponds<\/p>\n
to Rs.40,072\/- per cent.     It is pointed out that the Section 4(1)<\/p>\n
notification for the said acquisition is also dated 6.12.1996, as in<\/p>\n
the present case.   It is further pointed out that as per Ext.A9 sale<\/p>\n
deed dated 5.11.1993 the father of the claimant in LAR 33\/1999<\/p>\n
had purchased an item of property at the rate of Rs.20,000\/- per<\/p>\n
cent.   According to the counsel, the said property is in the very<\/p>\n
same survey number as the acquired property.           Since Ext.A9<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
property was part of the acquired property there is no justification<\/p>\n
for discarding the said document. Therefore, it is contended that<\/p>\n
the land value may be fixed for the acquired properties by adding<\/p>\n
escalation at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of Ext.A9<\/p>\n
sale deed till the date of the Section 4(1) notification in the present<\/p>\n
case.   The decisions reported in State of Kerala v. Jose Simon<\/a><\/p>\n
{2009(1) KLT 760} and Atma Singh v. State of Haryana {(2008) 2<\/p>\n
SCC 568} are also pressed into service.\n<\/p>\n
     7. We have heard Mr. V.M.Kurian, Advocate for the appellant-<\/p>\n
Municipality, Mr. Basant Balaji, the Senior Govt. Pleader and Mr.<\/p>\n
Gopikrishnan Nambiar, counsel for the claimants-cross objectors.<\/p>\n
We have gone through the records of the case and the evidence on<\/p>\n
record.     We have also given anxious consideration to the<\/p>\n
contentions advanced by the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     8.      At  the   instance   of  the   claimants    an   Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner had been deputed by the Reference Court to inspect<\/p>\n
the acquired properties.       Accordingly he had inspected the<\/p>\n
properties and his report and plan are marked as Exts.C1 & C1(a)<\/p>\n
by the Court. The Advocate Commissioner has reported that the<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                9<\/span><\/p>\n
properties under acquistion are all located in the heart of<\/p>\n
Muvattupuzha Municipal town. The proximity of the lands to the<\/p>\n
important      commercial,  Government    and    non-governmental<\/p>\n
establishments indicate that the properties are all situate in a<\/p>\n
commercially important locality.  Ext.C1 commission report    has<\/p>\n
referred in detail to the various commercial and other important<\/p>\n
establishments near the acquired properties.   The Velloorkunnam<\/p>\n
Village Office, Temple, Town U.P. School, Market, European<\/p>\n
Economic Market, Courts, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,<\/p>\n
Banks, Homoeo Hospital etc. are all located close to the acquired<\/p>\n
lands.    The above aspects are endorsed by Ext. C2 report also.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Commercial importance of the acquired lands is<\/p>\n
beyond dispute.      Considering the locational importance of the<\/p>\n
lands, it is clear that the lands were valuable assets, capable of<\/p>\n
commercial exploitation by the owners thereof.      However, the<\/p>\n
commission reports also show that the acquired properties are all<\/p>\n
lying at about 10-12 ft. lower than the road level. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
counsel for the Municipality has pointed out that commercial<\/p>\n
exploitation of the acquired lands would be possible only after<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
properly developing them into commercially attractive lands. Any<\/p>\n
such development would involve considerable expenditure, it is<\/p>\n
pointed out.    According to the counsel, in its present state, the<\/p>\n
land was not capable of commanding the same commercial value<\/p>\n
that other developed lands were capable of commanding. It is also<\/p>\n
pointed out that the sale deeds relied on by the claimants all relate<\/p>\n
to fully developed lands which cannot be compared with the<\/p>\n
acquired properties. It is true that the acquired lands are lying at<\/p>\n
levels substantially lower from the road level. Therefore, the lands<\/p>\n
certainly would not fetch the same market value that other level<\/p>\n
lands would be capable of fetching.    However, it is clear from the<\/p>\n
evidence on record that the acquired lands are situate in a<\/p>\n
commercially important locality in Muvattupuzha town.     Therefore,<\/p>\n
the commercial importance of the acquired properties also cannot<\/p>\n
be ignored for the sole reason that they are lying at a lower level<\/p>\n
from the road.\n<\/p>\n
      9. The claimants rely on Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds by which<\/p>\n
two items of properties have been purchased by the Muvattupuzha<\/p>\n
Municipality. As per Ext.A1 sale deed, 7.165 cents and 395 sq.links<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
of land have been purchased. As per Ext.A2 an extent of 2.61<\/p>\n
cents of land has been purchased.         The properties have been<\/p>\n
purchased at the rate of Rs.50,000\/- per cent.         The lands are<\/p>\n
situate in same village and is about 300 mtrs. away from the<\/p>\n
acquired land.    The sale deeds have been proved by examining<\/p>\n
A.W.2 who was the then Secretary of the Municipality.            The<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner has made a comparison of the properties<\/p>\n
covered by the above sale deeds with the acquired properties. It is<\/p>\n
seen from the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the<\/p>\n
properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are situate adjacent to the<\/p>\n
N.H.49.    The said lands were purchased for the formation of the<\/p>\n
byepass road. The properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are small<\/p>\n
extents that were acquired for opening the byepass road. They are<\/p>\n
also fully developed garden lands which are by the side of the main<\/p>\n
road.   Therefore, the value given in Exts.A1 and A2 cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted as such.    Further, it is to be noticed that Exts.A1 and A2<\/p>\n
are post notification documents, though only by a few months.<\/p>\n
      10.   Exts.A3 and A4 documents are two other sale deeds<\/p>\n
relating to nearby properties.     The value shown in the said sale<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                12<\/span><\/p>\n
deeds are Rs.44,444\/- and Rs.43,478\/- per cent respectively.<\/p>\n
However, the said documents show that the properties covered by<\/p>\n
the said deeds were garden lands with buildings therein. Ext. A6 is<\/p>\n
an order of this Court in C.M.A. 5\/2000 which related to an<\/p>\n
agreement for sale of an item of immovable property in the same<\/p>\n
locality.  The value of the property in the agreement for sale<\/p>\n
appears to be Rs.2,50,000\/- per cent. However, the said agreement<\/p>\n
has not been produced in Court.         Exts. A7 & A8 relates to<\/p>\n
proceedings for acquisition of     small bits of property for the<\/p>\n
construction of the TVS-Keecheripady road. The land value awarded<\/p>\n
is Rs.40,702 per cent, it appears that the acquired land in the said<\/p>\n
case was dry lands.   The properties under acquisition in the said<\/p>\n
case are only 500 mtrs. away from the acquired properties in these<\/p>\n
cases.      The Section 4(1) notification in the said case is also<\/p>\n
6.12.1996. Another document that is pressed into service by the<\/p>\n
claimants is Ext. A9 sale deed dated 5.11.1993 by which the father<\/p>\n
of the claimant in LAR 33\/99 has purchased an item of property at<\/p>\n
the rate of Rs.20,000\/- per cent.      It is the contention of the<\/p>\n
claimants that in spite of the unambiguous data available from the<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
above documents, the Reference Court seriously went wrong in not<\/p>\n
accepting the same and awarding land value at least at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.60,000\/- per cent.\n<\/p>\n
      11.    In considering the question as to what is the correct<\/p>\n
market value of the acquired lands, it is to be borne in mind that,<\/p>\n
what has to be ascertained is the price that would be offered by a<\/p>\n
willing buyer to a willing seller.  For the purpose of ascertaining<\/p>\n
the same, various principles have been laid down by the Apex Court<\/p>\n
as well as our Court in a number of cases. In Atma Singh’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) at page 572 (paragraph 4), the Apex Court has summed up<\/p>\n
the nature of the enquiry required in the following words:-<\/p>\n
            “The expression ‘market value’ has been        the<\/p>\n
      subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several<\/p>\n
      cases.   The market value is the price that a willing<\/p>\n
      purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property<\/p>\n
      having due regard to its existing condition with all its<\/p>\n
      existing advantages and its potential possibilities when<\/p>\n
      led out in most advantageous manner excluding any<\/p>\n
      advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which<\/p>\n
      the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering<\/p>\n
      market value disinclination of the vendor to part with<\/p>\n
      his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
       buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would be<\/p>\n
       the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would<\/p>\n
       offer the land and a purchaser in normal human<\/p>\n
       conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in<\/p>\n
       normal market conditions but not an anxious dealing at<\/p>\n
       arm’s length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale<\/p>\n
       brought about in quick succession or otherwise to<\/p>\n
       inflate the market value. The determination of market<\/p>\n
       value is the prediction of an economic event viz., a price<\/p>\n
       outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of<\/p>\n
       probabilities.”\n<\/p>\n
It is further laid down in the said decision that for ascertaining the<\/p>\n
market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land<\/p>\n
should also be taken into consideration.      By potentiality what is<\/p>\n
meant is the capacity of transforming into or being developed into<\/p>\n
a substantial asset or property of much higher value.       Therefore,<\/p>\n
apart from the actual advantages enjoyed by the property, it is also<\/p>\n
necessary to bear in mind and to take into consideration the<\/p>\n
capacity of the land to be converted into or being developed into a<\/p>\n
much more valuable asset. Viewed in the above prospective it is<\/p>\n
clear that though the properties are at present lying at levels much<\/p>\n
lower than the road, their location in close proximity to the main<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                15<\/span><\/p>\n
road gives them the potential of being developed into very valuable<\/p>\n
assets.   Therefore, the locational advantages     enjoyed by the<\/p>\n
properties are further enhanced by the potential for development<\/p>\n
which the acquired properties had.      Though the properties are<\/p>\n
paddy fields, according to the Revenue records the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner has reported that the lands were dry lands lying<\/p>\n
barren with no cultivation or improvements therein. The presence<\/p>\n
of commercial establishments, Banks, Government institutions,<\/p>\n
Schools and financial institutions clearly evidence the potential of<\/p>\n
the land for development, which has to be considered as an input<\/p>\n
while determining the market value of the acquired properties.<\/p>\n
However, the above considerations do not appear to have weighed<\/p>\n
much, with the Reference Court while fixing the land value of the<\/p>\n
acquired properties.\n<\/p>\n
      12. The Land Acquisition Officer had categorised the lands<\/p>\n
into two. Category I with road access was given a higher value of<\/p>\n
Rs.17,000\/- per Are while the lands in Category II without road<\/p>\n
access was given a lesser value of Rs.15,400\/- per Are. However,<\/p>\n
the Reference Court has discarded the categorisation that was<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                16<\/span><\/p>\n
adopted, without assigning any reason. It cannot be disputed that<\/p>\n
lands with road access enjoy a definite advantage over similar lands<\/p>\n
that do not have road access. Therefore, lands with road access are<\/p>\n
certainly more valuable than similar lands without road access.<\/p>\n
Hence the Reference       Court went wrong in discarding the<\/p>\n
categorisation and granting the same land value for lands with road<\/p>\n
access and those without such advantage.     For the above reasons,<\/p>\n
we hold that the categorisation adopted by the Land Acquistion<\/p>\n
Officer was correct and therefore, we treat the three cases in which<\/p>\n
the lands had road access a little differently from those without<\/p>\n
road access.\n<\/p>\n
      13. A perusal of the documents Exts. A1, A2, A3, A4, A6, A7<\/p>\n
& A8    show higher value than what has been granted by the<\/p>\n
Reference Court. However, the value shown in the said documents<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted as such for the reason that they relate to pucca<\/p>\n
garden lands.    The properties covered by Exts. A1 and A2 relates<\/p>\n
to small bits of land. The same is the case with that of Exts. A7 &<\/p>\n
A8.   But, the locational advantages enjoyed by the acquired<\/p>\n
property cannot be lost sight of. At the same time it is to be borne<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                17<\/span><\/p>\n
in mind that the acquired lands are lying at substantially lower<\/p>\n
levels from the adjacent road. Nevertheless, the potential of the<\/p>\n
properties    for development   must   also be    taken   note  of.<\/p>\n
Considering all the above aspects, we feel that the correct market<\/p>\n
value of the acquired lands can be fixed at Rs.68,000\/- per Are for<\/p>\n
the lands in Category I (with road access). The lands in category II<\/p>\n
are certainly at a disadvantage for want of road access and,<\/p>\n
therefore,   we fix the disadvantage for such lands without road<\/p>\n
access at 10% of the value of the lands with road access.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the market value of the lands in category II works out<\/p>\n
to Rs.61,200\/- per Are.\n<\/p>\n
      14.    The result of the above discussion is that LAA Nos:<\/p>\n
175\/2004, 750\/2004, 718\/2004, 763\/2004, 629\/2009, 141\/2005,<\/p>\n
630\/2004,      955\/2004,  682\/2004,   628\/2004,    678\/2004    and<\/p>\n
735\/2004 are dismissed.     Cross objection Nos: 9\/2005, 33\/2005,<\/p>\n
42\/2005, 38\/2005, 11\/2005 and 118\/2005 are allowed.            The<\/p>\n
market value of the lands that form the subject matter of Cross<\/p>\n
Objection Nos: 9\/2005, 11\/2005 and         118\/2005 are fixed at<\/p>\n
Rs.68,000\/- per Are while the market value of the lands that form<\/p>\n
LAA 682\/04 etc.                 18<\/span><\/p>\n
the subject matter of Cross Objection Nos: 33\/2005, 42\/2005 and<\/p>\n
38\/2005 are fixed at Rs.61,200\/- per Are. It is made clear that the<\/p>\n
claimants shall be entitled to the statutory benefits under Sections<\/p>\n
23(2), 23(1-A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the<\/p>\n
enhanced compensation. In the circumstances of the case there will<\/p>\n
be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
\n                                                   Judge<\/p>\n
                                         K. SURENDRA MOHAN
\n                                                   Judge<\/p>\n
jj<\/p>\n
              PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
\n              K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
—————————————\n<\/p>\n
                   L.A.A.NO:\n<\/p>\n
—————————————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                    Dated:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM LA.App..No. 682 of 2004() 1. MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, … Petitioner Vs 1. VARKEY, S\/O. KURUVILLA BABU, … Respondent 2. MOLLY, W\/O. VARKEY, 3. STATE OF KERALA. For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN For Respondent :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.) The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMuvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-24T14:21:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-24T14:21:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3440,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-24T14:21:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-24T14:21:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-24T14:21:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009"},"wordCount":3440,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009","name":"Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-24T14:21:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muvattupuzha-municipality-vs-varkey-on-11-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muvattupuzha Municipality vs Varkey on 11 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}