Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Rep.By The ... vs P.Vidyadharan on 13 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA,
1945
LA.APP. NO. 605 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2013 IN LAR
539/2009 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
P.VIDYADHARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN,
T C 11/121(1), RAMKAMAL, PARUTHIPARA,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
BY ADV. SRI. B.ANANTHU, FOR R1
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 13.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
L.A.Appeal No.605 of 2014
-: 2 :-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & P.G.AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
L.A.Appeal No.605 of 2014
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2023
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
This appeal by the State is directed against the
judgment and decree in LAR No.539 of 2009 on the files of the
Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram dated
25.06.2013.
2. An extent of 0.06 Ares of land in Re-Survey
Nos.34/90 and 34/91 of Ulloor Village was acquired from the
respondent for the purpose of widening of Mannanthala-
Kesavadasapuram road, pursuant to a notification issued on
31.01.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. In
the matter of granting compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer
classified the notified lands into different categories. The acquired
land was one brought under category 'C' for which the Land
Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.2,45,369/- per Are
which was enhanced and re-fixed by the reference court at
L.A.Appeal No.605 of 2014
Rs.19,20,000/- per Are. There were a few structures in the acquired
land and the Land Acquisition Officer granted only a sum of
Rs.49,292/- towards compensation for the same. The reference
court, on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner
appointed in the proceedings, re-fixed the compensation payable in
respect of the structures at Rs.4,77,148/-. Even though the
respondent contended that the acquired land should have been
classified and categorised differently, the said contention was not
considered by the reference court. It is aggrieved by the decision of
the reference court re-fixing the land value and the compensation
payable to the structures, that the State has come up in this
appeal.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as also
the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that
a batch of appeals preferred by the State challenging the awards
passed by the reference court in respect of the lands acquired for
the very same purpose pursuant to the very same notification were
disposed of by this Court in terms of the judgment in L.A.A. No.280
of 2013 and connected cases , scaling down the land value fixed for
the lands falling under category 'C' to Rs.9,61,800/- in the place of
Rs.19,20,000/-. According to the learned Government Pleader, in
L.A.Appeal No.605 of 2014
the circumstances, the compensation granted by the reference
court for the acquired land will have to be made consistent with the
decision of this Court in L.A.A. No.280 of 2013 and connected cases.
It was also pointed by the learned Government Pleader that the
compensation granted by the reference court for the structures is
unreasonably excessive which has absolutely no legal basis.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
pointed out that inasmuch as the acquired land does not fall under
category 'C' and it is a land which should have been brought under
category 'A', this Court may not interfere with the fixation of land
value made by the reference court. As regards the compensation
fixed for the structures in the acquired land, it was submitted by the
learned counsel that it was based on the report of the Advocate
Commissioner who assessed the value of the structures with the aid
of an expert, enhanced compensation was granted by the reference
court. It was submitted that the State has not preferred any
objection at all to the report of the Advocate Commissioner and they
cannot, therefore, be heard to contend that the compensation
granted for the structures is excessive.
6. We have examined the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties on either side.
L.A.Appeal No.605 of 2014
7. It is seen that, as pointed out by the learned
Government Pleader, in a batch of cases, this Court scaled down the
compensation granted to identical properties acquired for the same
purpose under the same notification under category 'C' to
Rs.9,61,800/- from Rs.19,20,000/-. The respondent does not dispute
the said fact. The materials indicate that even though the claimant
contended in the written statement before the reference court that
the acquired land should have been categorised differently for the
purpose of fixing the land value, no evidence is seen let in, in
support of his contention. In the circumstances, we are of the view
that for the purpose of maintaining consistency in the fixation of the
land value of the lands acquired for the same purpose under the
same notification, it is necessary to scale down the land value fixed
by the reference court in tune with the judgment in L.A.A. No.280 of
2013 and connected cases.
8. Coming to the contention raised by the learned
Government Pleader as regards the compensation granted to the
structures in the acquired land, as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the respondent, it is seen that the compensation granted
by the Land Acquisition Officer for the structures has been re-fixed
by the reference court based on the report of the Advocate
Commissioner, who assessed the value of the structures with the aid
L.A.Appeal No.605 of 2014
of an expert, and the State has not preferred any objection to the
report of the Advocate Commissioner. The contention aforesaid, in
the circumstances, is liable to be rejected.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The
compensation granted to the respondent by the reference court is
scaled down to Rs.9,61,800/-. The respondent would be entitled to
compensation on that basis. The directions contained in the
impugned judgment in all other respects would stand.
I.A.No.1176 of 2014 : Closed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
P.G.AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE.
ds 13.09.2023
