Kerala High Court
The State Of Kerala vs Jayachandran on 12 November, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 1
2024:KER:87863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2021 IN LAR NO.94 OF 2013 OF II
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
P.GOPAKUMAR
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.PARAMESWARAN, KUNNIL VEEDU, THRIPADAPURAM NORTH, KULATHOOR
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695132.
BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TECHNOPARK, KAZHAKOOTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582.
BY ADV K.V.RASHMI
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SRI T K SHAJAHAN
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.11.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..496/2022, 177/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 2
2024:KER:87863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 496 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN LAR NO.122 OF 2013 OF II
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR:
1 BRINDA
D/O KAMALA BAI,KUZHIVILAKATHU VEEDU,ROSE NAGAR,SREEKARIYAM P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT SANGEETHA,BN-
413,PONGUMOODU,BAPUJI NAGAR,MEDICAL COLLEGE
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TECHNOPARK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
BY ADV RASHMI.K.V FOR R2
SRI. T.K SHAJAHAN, SR.GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.11.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..239/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 3
2024:KER:87863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 177 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.3.2019 IN LAR NO.200 OF 2013
OF IInd ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN LAR:
1 JAYACHANDRAN
S/O.CHAKRAPANI, MELKULATHOOR VEEDU, ATTINKUZHI, KAZHAKUTTOM
P.O., ALUVA, PIN - 695 022.
2 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS KERALA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY – REGISTRAR – SURESH KUMAR K,
TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, PARK CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.
ARUN BABU
RASHMI.K.V
ANIL THOMAS(T)
SRI. T.K SHAJAHAN, SR. GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2024,
ALONG WITH LA.App..239/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 4
2024:KER:87863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 171 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CMCP NO.75 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.03.2019 IN LAR NO.201 OF
2013 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
1 SURESH BABU
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.CHAKRAPANI, MELKULATHOOR VEEDU, ATTINKUZHI, KAZHAKOOTAM
P.O., ATTIPRA.
2 PRASANNA B.,
AGED 52,W/O.SURESH BABU,MELKULATHOOR VEEDU,ATTINKUZHI,
KAZHAKOOTAM P.O.,ATTIPRA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(PROPOSED
ADDITIONAL2ND APPELLANT).
3 SURYA P.S.,
AGED 25,D/O.SURESH BABU,MELKULATHOOR
VEEDU,ATTINKUZHI,KAZHAKOOTAM P.O., ATTIPRA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
(PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 3RD APPELLANT).
4 SWATHY P.S.,
AGED 18,D/O.SURESH BABU,MELKULATHOOR VEEDU,ATTINKUZHI,
KAZHAKOOTAM P.O.,ATTIPRA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (PROPOSED
ADDITIONAL 4TH APPELLANT).
ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 AS PER THE ORDER
DATED 8/9/21 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2020.
BY ADV ARUN BABU
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
2 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS KERALA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY – REGISTRAR – SURESH KUMAR K,
TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, PARK CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA.
BY ADVS.
RASHMI.K.V
ANIL THOMAS(T)
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2024,
ALONG WITH LA.App..239/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 5
2024:KER:87863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 172 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2019 IN LAR NO.200 OF 2013 OF Iind
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
JAYACHANDRAN
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. CHAKRAPANI, MELKULATHOOR VEEDU, ATTINKUZHI, KAZHAKOOTTAM
P.O., ATTIPRA, NOW RESIDING AT ROSE VILLA, KIZHAKKUMKARA,
KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV ARUN BABU
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695043
2 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS KERALA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY – REGISTRAR – SURESH KUMAR K,
TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, PARK CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA.
BY ADVS.
RASHMI.K.V
ANIL THOMAS(T)
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2024,
ALONG WITH LA.App..239/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 6
2024:KER:87863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 177 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.3.2019 IN CMCP NO.78 OF 2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2019 IN LAR
NO.196 OF 2013 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/II ADDITIONAL SUB
COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
JAYACHANDRAN
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O CHAKRAPANI, MELKULATHOOR VEEDU, ATTINKUZHI, KAZHAKOOTAM P.O,
ATTIPRA, NOW RESIDING AT ROSE VILLA, KIZHAKKUMKARA, KULATHOOR
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV ARUN BABU
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS KERALA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY – REGISTRAR – SURESH KUMAR K,
TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, PARK CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA.
BY ADVS.
RASHMI.K.V
ANIL THOMAS(T)
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.11.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..239/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 7
2024:KER:87863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 242 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2021 IN LAR NO.124 OF 2013 OF II
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
P.GOPAKUMAR
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. PARAMESWARAN, KUNNIL VEEDU, THRIPADAPURAM NORTH, KULATHOOR
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695132.
BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARK KERALA, TECHNOPARK, KAZHAKOOTOM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582.
BY ADV K.V.RASHMI
SRI. T.K SHAJAHAN, SR. GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2024,
ALONG WITH LA.App..239/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 8
2024:KER:87863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 244 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2021 IN LAR NO.126 OF 2013 OF II
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
MOHANDAS
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE VALSALAM, KARTHIKA, MUTTUMPURAM, SREKARIYAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017.
BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TECHNOPARK, KAZHAKOOTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.
BY ADV K.V.RASHMI
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2024,
ALONG WITH LA.App..239/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 9
2024:KER:87863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 63 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.3.2019 IN LAR NO.192 OF 2013 OF II
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:
USHA
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O.RADHA, MELKULATHOOR VEEDU, ATTINKUZHY, ATTIPRA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.
BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
043.
2 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS KERALA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY – REGISTRAR – SURESH KUMAR K,
TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, PARK CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA.
BY ADVS.
RASHMI.K.V
ANIL THOMAS(T),
SRI. T.K SHAJAHAN, SR. GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2024,
ALONG WITH LA.App..239/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 10
2024:KER:87863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 12 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2019 IN LAR NO.191 OF 2013 OF IInd
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
T.F.SHARLET
S/O.THOBIAS FERNANDEZ,T.C.2/892,MUTHARAMMAN
TEMPLE,ATTINKUZHY,KAZHAKUTTOM,ATTIPRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695582.
BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695043.
2 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY-
REGISTRAR-SURESH KUMAR K
TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, PARK CENTRE, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM
is impleaded as Additional 2nd respondent in LAA No.12/2020 as
per ORDER dated 31.7.2023 in I.A No.1 of 2023
BY ADV RASHMI.K.V
SR. GP G.K SHAJAHAN, R1
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FIANLLY HEARD ON 12.11.2024,
ALONG WITH LA.App..239/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 239 OF 2021 and conctd. cases 11
2024:KER:87863
JUDGMENT
[LA.App. Nos.239/2021, 496/2022, 177/2021, 171/2019, 172/2019, 177/2019, 242/2021,
244/2021, 63/2020, 12/2020]
Amit Rawal, J.
This order shall dispose of ten (10) appeals out of which, two (2)
have been filed on behalf of the State Government for reduction in
the amount of compensation awarded and remaining by the
claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation in respect of
the acquisition of land arising out of the notification under Section
4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, caused on 15.9.2010.
Impleading petition:
Before dealing with the facts of the case, Smt. Rashmi K.V,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that
the State of Kerala, the acquisition authority, was sent a requisition
by Electronic Techno park through its Secretary-Registrar,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, for whom the land was acquired.
Unfortunately, the beneficiary, in some cases, was not a party before
the reference court. In view of the settled law, the beneficiary is
required to be impleaded and given an opportunity to lead evidence
for arriving at a just and fair compensation/enhancement, to be
assessed by the competent authority under the erstwhile Land
Acquisition Act. In support of the contentions, relied upon the
2024:KER:87863
judgment of Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola
Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs and Others (2010 KHC 4972) and
submitted that it was a case where neither before the reference
court nor before the High Court when the appeals were preferred
for seeking enhancement of the compensation, the beneficiary was
impleaded. To the similar extent, reliance has been also laid to the
following judgments ie., (Agra Development Authority v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and Others (2001 KHC 1038) and Union of India v.
Pradeep Kumari (1996 KHC 24) and thus prays for the impleadment
of the beneficiary as Additional second respondent and that the
matter be referred to the reference court.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent submitted that the claimants are not in averse of the
impleadment of the beneficiary but the matter cannot be remitted
back, as, the beneficiary has failed to implead themself as co-
appellants in the appeal preferred by the State or could have
assailed the order of the reference court by filing independent
appeal, seeking condonation of delay. Moreover, the State has not
filed any appeal against the award of the reference court enhancing
the amount of compensation than the one assessed by the Land
Acquisition Officer except in two land acquisition references.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
2024:KER:87863
appraised the paper books. There is no quarrel to the ratio
decidendi culled out in the judgment in Delhi Development Authority
(supra). Paragraph 28, 29 read as follows:
28. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as also the
judgments of the Reference Court are set aside and the matters
are remitted to the Reference Court for deciding the two
references afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the
parties, which shall necessarily include opportunity to adduce
evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of
compensation. The Reference Court shall decide the matter
without being influenced by the observations contained in the
judgment of the High Court and this judgment.
29. In view of the above conclusions, the cross-objections filed
on behalf of the Union of India and the Land Acquisition
Collector in C.A. Nos.6564 and 6565 of 2001 are disposed of as
infructuous. However, as the judgments of the Reference Court
and the High Court have been set aside and a direction has
been given for fresh determination of the amount of
compensation payable to the respondents, the Union of India
and the Land Acquisition Collector shall be free to participate in
the proceedings before the Reference Court.
4. The questions posed before us are whether the application for
impleadment as additional respondents in the appeal preferred by
the claimants can be allowed and whether the beneficiary would be
able to assail the order of the land acquisition reference court. The
answer is 'No'. Being respondent, cannot invoke the provisions of
2024:KER:87863
order 41 Rule 33, for, they were required to file an independent
appeal by seeking condonation of delay along with an application to
place on record additional evidences to show that the compensation
arrived at by the land acquisition reference court was erroneous or
on a higher side. Having failed to do so, we thus accept the request
in part, by allowing the application for impleadment but reject the
prayer for remanding the matter to the reference court for adducing
fresh evidence. Applications for impleading are allowed to the
aforementioned limited extent.
Main case
5. Since the facts relevant for the adjudication of all the
aforementioned appeals are common, all the matters are disposed of
together.
Facts:
6. Present case pertains to the acquisition of land situated in
Attipra Village for formation of an approach road from NH Bye pass
to Phase III campus of Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram. A
notification in this regard was published under Section 4(1) of the
Act on 15.9.2010. Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of the
material placed on record, vide award dated 29.7.2013 assessed the
compensation of the land, categorizing the land into five(5)
categories ie., A to E. In respect of category A, fixed the land value to
2024:KER:87863
the tune of Rs.15,41,096/- per Are and for other categories, fixed the
land value at different rates. The minimum rate of land value was
fixed in 'E' category at Rs.97, 218/- per Are.
7. Land owners preferred various references for seeking
enhancement of the compensation on the premise that the property
was situated at the heart of the Thiruvananthapuram city near to
Kazhakkutom junction, parallel to the Kazhakuttam - Kovalam N.H.
Bypass. Institutions such as Technopark, Kariavattom University
Campus, Engineering College, Food Corporation of India Godown,
VSSC, Aspirin Plant, Bharath Petroleum, Railway station, various
Banks, Police station, Excise Office, Hospitals, Schools, Shopping
Complexes, Religious institutions are all at the very vicinity to the
acquired property, therefore, the acquired property have very high
potential and it could fetch higher price, in case sold privately. In
support of the cases, brought on record the following documentary
evidences to claim a higher compensation, i.e, Ext.A1 and A2. Ext. A1
is the certified copy of the sale deeds dated 29.9.2008 and A2 is the
certifid copy of Sale Deed dated 9.7.2008 consisting of more than 15
Ares of the land fetching a price of Rs.30,88,000/-. Besides the
aforementioned documentary evidence, had also taken the assistance
of the Commissioner whose report has been exhibited as C1 and the
rough sketch as C1(a). Respondents have brought on record Exhibits
2024:KER:87863
R1 to R31, the details of which are given herein below:
2024:KER:87863
8. Learned Reference court enhanced the amount of
compensation in respect of Category 'A' land from Rs.15,41,096/- per
Are to Rs. 26,96,918/- and for other parcels of the land, granted
increase of 1.75 times of the land value.
Arguments of the claimants:
9. Learned counsel representing on behalf of the claimants,
in support of the case, submitted that the reasoning assigned by the
Land Acquisition Reference court for rejecting the document, Ext.A1
is recorded in paragraph 40 of the award. The perusal of the same
reveals that the said document has been rejected primarily on the
ground that the same had already been dealt with by the land
acquisition officer. In fact, that cannot be a ground for adjudication
by the Land Acquisition reference court, as, it is based upon the
independent evidences than the one already placed before the Land
Acquisition Officer., much less, against the terms of the settled laws
as well as the then applicable Indian Evidence Act. The subject
matter of the property in Ext.A2 sale deed dated 9.7.2008 is situated
on the western side of the National Highway, had a depression of
six(6) feet and fetched a price of Rs.30,88,000/- whereas the land of
the appellants-claimants is better located therefore have a better
potential to fetch higher price in case the property is sold privately.
2024:KER:87863
10. He further argued that the belting system is not permissible,
as, few parcels of the land have been categorized as 'E' category and
lesser amount of compensation has been awarded, than the one
granted to the land owners whose land had been brought under the
category 'A'. In support of the contentions relied upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Besco Limited v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC
Online SC 1071]
Arguments of the State (LA.App No.177 of 2021 and LA.App):
11. Mr.Shajahan and Smt. Rashmi K.V, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the State as well as for the beneficiary submitted that
the land value enhanced by the Reference court is exponentially
higher than the potential in the market, as, the basic document
fetched a lesser price. Therefore the amount of compensation arrived
at by the Land Acquisition Officer ie., to the tune of Rs.15,41,096/-
per Are was perfectly justified, as, there is no scope for any
enhancement. The court below could not have increased the
compensation to an increase of 1.75 times of the land value than the
given by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Findings:
12. We have heard the counsel for the parties, seen the records
and appraised the paper books. The report of the Commissioner,
Ext.C1 has gone unrebutted. It reveals that the location of the
2024:KER:87863
property acquired for the setting up of the approach road to Phase
III campus of Technopark had a better potential as it was located in
the heart of the Thiruvananthapuram city, surrounded by big houses
and commercial establishments. Obviously, in the absence of
acquisition, any owner if in need of the money, can fetch a higher
price by selling in the open market than the one valued by the State
ie., the collector rate. The basic document bearing number
1068/2007 relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, as per the
report of the Commissioner, consisted of ten(10) feet canal and
obviously the price of the land adjacent to the canal would be lesser
than the price of the land situated at a better locality and place . It
would be apposite to extract the paragraph 40 of the judgment
whereby the reference court had discarded the documents Exts.A1
and A2. The same reads as under:
40. Thus it is seen that the sale deeds Ext.A1 and
A2 produced from the part of the claimants in
support of their claim for an enhanced land value
had already been considered by the LAO and had
been discarded in view of the ground realities.
Therefore a market value cannot be fixed based on
them.
13. The extracted portion above, leaves no manner of doubt that
the reference court has committed material irregularity in discarding
the documents on the premise that it was the subject matter of
consideration by the land acquisition officer. In order to bring succor
2024:KER:87863
to the claimants, Section 18 of the erstwhile Act had provision for
seeking further enhancement of land, than the one arrived at by the
Land Acquisition Officer. It is a complete code whereby an
opportunity is granted to the affected parties to lead evidence to
differ or distinguish the findings of the Land Acquisition Officer and
for claiming higher amount of compensation. Precisely,
aforementioned procedure has been followed on behalf of the
claimants by bringing on record Exts.A1 and A2, the sale deeds dated
29.9.2008 and 9.7.2008, executed almost two years before the date
of the notification issued under Section 4(1) on 15.9.2010. At that
relevant point of time, the property, more than 15 Ares of land, in the
open market, fetched a sum of Rs.30,88,000/- per Are. The increase
of 1.75 times the land value, in our considered view, is lesser,
considering the time lag between the execution of the sale deed and
date of notification ie., almost two years.
14. Therefore we are of the view that the claimants are
entitled to an enhancement of an amount of compensation to the tune
of Rs.33, 88,000/- per Are, ie., by considering Ext.A1 and A2 as well
as 10% increase, in view of the importance of land situated in the
heart of the city. We grant compensation equally to the landowners
whose land has been acquired for setting up the approach road to
Phase III of Technopark without adopting any belting system. In
2024:KER:87863
other words, the enhancement is uniformly to all the landowners.
15. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the claimants are allowed
viz-a-viz appeals of the State, we would not be dwelling on the merits
of the matter for the reason that the appeals would not be
maintainable, as, the State has chosen to challenge only two land
acquisition references but have not assigned any reasons in not
challenging the other land acquisition references whereby the
amount of compensation had exponentially been increased than the
one arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore those
appeals are held to be not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed.
Delay in filing the appeals shall stand condoned and no reduction in
the rate of interest during the period of delay. It is made clear that
the land owners are entitled to all statutory benefits and interests
along with proportionate cost.
16. If in any of the cases, there is a shortfall of deficiency or
insufficiency of the court fees, the appellants are given two months
time from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, to do the
needful. Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
sab EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
