Kerala High Court
M/S. Nippon Realtors Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 24 May, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 626 OF 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR NO.221 OF 2007 OF
III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 1 IN LAR:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
ICTT,VALLARPADAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ROSE MICHAEL
SPL.G.P.-SMT.N.SUDHADEVI
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & R2 IN LAR:
1 M/S.NIPPON REALTORS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY SEBA BABU MOOPAN,
D/NO.10/314 K, NIPPON TOWERS,
NH 47, BYE-PASS, NETTOOR 670 105.
2 M/S.HEXA TECH DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY BABU GEORGE, PIN-35.
DOOR NO.CCXL/242, BIO PHARMA LAYAM ROAD,
KRITHALA DESOM.
3 THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST 682003.
BY ADVS.
DEENA JOSEPH -R1 & R2
SMT.THUSHARA JAMES }
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR } - R3
P.G.GOKULNATH -R1 & R2
T.R.S.KUMAR -R1 & R2
K.V.SABU -R1 & R2
SOBIN SOMAN -R1 & R2
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 24.05.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..446/2013, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
L.A.A.Nos.626 of 2011 & 446 of 2013
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 446 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.12.2010 IN LAR
NO.221 OF 2007 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:
1 M/S. NIPPON REALTORS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SEBA BABU MOOPAN,
DOOR NO 10/314K, NIPOON TOWERS, N.H 47, BYE PASS,
NETOOR.
2 M/S.HEXA TECH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
RERPESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR BABU GEROGE,
DOOR No.CCXL/242, BIO PHARMA, LAYAM ROAD,
KARITHALA DESOM
BY ADV SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
(LA), ICTT, VALLARPADAOM, ELOOR.
2 THE CHAIRMAN
COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) }-FOR R1
SMT.LATHA ANAND }
SMT.N.SUDHADEVI - SPL.GOVT. PLEADER
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 24.05.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..626/2011, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
L.A.A.Nos.626 of 2011 & 446 of 2013
3
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & S.MANU, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------
L.A.A.Nos.626 of 2011 & 446 of 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
S.MANU, J.
L.A.A.No.626 of 2011 has been filed by the State
aggrieved by the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.221 of
2007 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The claimant has come
up in L.A.R.No.446 of 2013 seeking enhancement in the
same case.
2. We heard the appeals together.
3. 3.46 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.559/3 of
Kadamakkudy Village was acquired for the purpose of four
line road from Vallarpadam to Kalamassery. Notification
under Section 4(1) was issued on 27.9.2005 and the land
was taken possession on 09.01.2007. The Land Acquisition
Officer fixed the land value @ Rs.8,658/- per Are as per
award dated 02.05.2007. The claimants raised objection
and thus the matter was referred to the Sub Court,
Ernakulam. The learned Sub Judge enhanced the land value
to Rs.75,039/- per Are.
L.A.A.Nos.626 of 2011 & 446 of 2013
4. The learned Government Pleader argued that the
reference court committed serious error in enhancing the
land value. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the claimants submitted that the
enhancement is insufficient and contended that the same is
liable to be interfered with and further enhanced by this
Court.
5. We have perused the impugned judgment and the
relevant records.
6. Before the reference court AW1 (2nd claimant) and
AW2 (Advocate Commissioner) were examined and Exts.A1
to A3 were marked. Exts.C1 and C1(a) were also marked on
the side of the claimants. Exts.R1 and R2 were marked on
the side of the respondents.
7. The acquired property was included in Category
No.8B (paddy field without pathway access) by the Land
Acquisition Officer. Two sale deeds were taken as basis to fix
the land value and after giving 6% increase, land value for
Category No.8B was fixed as Rs.8,658/- per Are. The
L.A.A.Nos.626 of 2011 & 446 of 2013
claimant contended that the land value at the time of
acquisition was Rs.8,00,000/- per cent. The reference court,
on the basis of evidence, concluded that the acquired
property is a 'dry land' having pathway access and included
it in category No.4B. The sale deeds Exts.A1 to A3 produced
by the claimants were not relied on as such, as they pertain
to properties in Mulavukadu and Thanthonni Thuruthu
islands; whereas the property under acquisition is situated in
Moolampallikkara. Also, the reference court noticed that
Exts.A1 to A3 are post notification sale deeds. Therefore, it
concluded that sale deeds produced by the claimants cannot
be taken as basis to fix the land value. No evidence was
adduced by the State regarding land value.
8. Taking note of the land value fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer for category No.4B, i.e., Rs.62,533/- per
Are and the time gap between the notification and basic
document, the learned Sub Judge fixed the value at
Rs.75,039/- per Are after granting 20% increase over the
land value fixed for category No.4B. Though the learned
counsel for the claimants submitted that the reference court
L.A.A.Nos.626 of 2011 & 446 of 2013
went wrong in refusing to accept and act upon the value
mentioned in Exts.A1 to A3 we are not persuaded to accept
the argument as we find that the reasoning adopted by the
learned Sub Judge for not relying upon the same is sound
and convincing. The learned Government Pleader submitted
that the reference court went wrong in including the
property under category No.4B and granting enhancement.
He also pointed out that the claimants had not adduced
convincing evidence in support of the claim for
enhancement. We find that the learned Sub Judge has
appreciated the report of the Advocate Commissioner and
the rough sketch produced to conclude that the property
acquired in the case should come in category No.4B. We
don't find anything wrong with the said conclusion arrived at
on the basis of reliable evidence. The learned Sub Judge has
proceeded to fix the enhanced value on the basis of the
value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for category
No.4B and has granted a reasonable hike of 20% in view of
time lag as well as locational importance. The said method
adopted also cannot be said to be improper or incorrect.
L.A.A.Nos.626 of 2011 & 446 of 2013
In the result, we do not find any reason to interfere with
the judgment and decree of the reference court and hence
we dismiss both the appeals. Parties shall suffer their
respective costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
S.MANU, JUDGE
skj
