R.Dhanapalan vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 6283 Ker

Kerala High Court

R.Dhanapalan vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2025

                                                  2025:KER:36206




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

  MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                     LA.APP. NO. 51 OF 2016

          AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2015 IN

LAR       NO.471    OF   2010      OF   II    ADDITIONAL    SUB

COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL/CLAIMANT IN LAR No.471/2010:

             R.DHANAPALAN
             S/O.S.M.RAMASWAMI,
             TC NO.38/427
             CHENTHITTA,
             KOCHAR ROAD,
             THYCAUD,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

             BY ADVS.
             S.K.ADHITHYAN
             BHAVYA BINU(K/1272/2021)


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR NO.471/2010:

      1      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
             PIN 695 004.
                                                            2025:KER:36206
L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

                                     2



    2          THE SECRETARY
               TRIDA
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
               PIN 695 003.


               BY ADV
               SMT.REKHA C NAIR-SR.GP


        THIS    LAND   ACQUISITION       APPEAL   HAVING    BEEN   FINALLY
HEARD ON 26.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                            2025:KER:36206
L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

                             3



                       JUDGMENT

1. The claimant is the appellant. The land belonging to

the claimant was acquired as per Section 4(1)

Notification dated 30/01/2008 under Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 for widening of road. According to the Land

Acquisition Officer, only 0.11 ares was acquired from

the claimant. According to the claimant 0.30 ares was

acquired from him. The Land Acquisition Officer passed

Award granting compensation for 0.11 ares and the

building therein fixing land value @ Rs.4,75,248/- per

Are building value at Rs.58,177/- .

2. The claimant sought reference under Section 18 with

respect to the extent of land and the compensation. The

Reference Court awarded compensation fixing land 2025:KER:36206 L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

value @ Rs.25,30,000/- per Are, relying on Ext.A1

judgment of the same Court in L.A.R. No.200/2009. The

Reference Court found that there is no evidence to hold

that 0.30 Ares was acquired from the claimant. Thus the

claim of the claimant for compensation for 0.19 Ares of

land was denied. Though the claimant produced Ext.A2

Commission Report which includes the Valuation of the

building and examined AW2/Engineer who prepared the

Valuation Report, the Reference Court refused to rely

on the same and did not award any additional

compensation for the building value. As per Ext.A2, the

value of the building is assessed at Rs.16,02,600/- by

AW2.

3. The appeal is filed against refusal to grant 2025:KER:36206 L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

compensation for 0.19 Ares and enhancement for the

building value.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.

S.K.Adityan and the learned Sr. Government Pleader

Smt.Rekha C. Nair.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that

Ext.A2(a) would prove that 0.30 Ares was taken

possession from the claimant. The Reference Court

acted illegally in grating compensation for the entire

0.30 ares of land. In view of Ext.A2 Valuation Report

proved by AW2/Chartered Engineer, the Reference

Court ought to have granted building value relying on

the same. AW2 specifically deposed that the said

building was inspected before demolition. The evidence 2025:KER:36206 L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

of AW2 was not effectively challenged by the

respondents.

6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. Government Pleader

contended that more than 0.11 ares was taken

possession from the claimant. Ext.A2(a) plan shows

0.30 ares, but that does not mean the said extent was

taken possession from the claimant. Ext.A2 Valuation

Report could not be relied fixing the building value. The

rate which is applied by the Engineer is not stated. It is

not clear whether the building is situated in 0.11 Ares of

land acquired from the claimant or 0.30 Ares of land

which is claimed to have acquired from the claimant.

The age of the building is not correctly assessed. The

depreciation was not deducted. It is seen that the said 2025:KER:36206 L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

report was obtained in another suit, O.S. No.1012/2009.

The said Report could not be taken for evidence in the

present reference.

7. I have considered the rival contentions.

8. The first question to be considered in this appeal is the

extent of land acquired from the claimant. The

acquisition records would show that only 0.11 Ares of

land was acquired from the claimant. There is nothing

on record other than Ext.A2(a) plan to show the extent

is 0.30 Ares. Relying on Ext.A2(a) plan, it could not be

said that the extend covered by the said Plan was taken

into possession by the respondents. Hence, the

Reference Court was right in holding that only 0.11 Ares

of land was acquired and taken possession from the 2025:KER:36206 L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

claimant. It is not a case that 0.30 Ares was taken

possession by the respondents and only 0.11 Ares was

valued by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the absence

of any evidence regarding the taking of possession of

the land in excess of 0.11 land, the claim of the

appellant that excess land was taken from the

possession of appellant could not be found in his

favour.

9. In order to prove the value of the building, the claimant

relies on Ext.A2 Valuation Report and the evidence of

AW2. On going through Ext.A2, it is seen that AW2

Chartered Engineer inspected the building before

demolition and prepared the Valuation Report. The

Chartered Engineer specifically stated that the valuation 2025:KER:36206 L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

is undertaken based on the cost of construction of an

identical existing building as replacement value as on

2008. Assessment of replacement value is not the

correct valuation. The Engineer ought to have assessed

the cost of construction, age of the building and the

depreciation for the age. The Engineer could not assess

the exact age of the building. The age of the building is

roughly assessed as not less than 20 years. It would

show that the building was an old one. He has stated

that the building has been modified from time to time

incorporating most modern amenities. But he has not

detailed the said modification and modern amenities in

the Report. The rate adopted by the Chartered

Engineer is not disclosed in the report. It is stated that 2025:KER:36206 L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

the rate provided for the items are based on local rates

prevailing in 2008 and his experience and knowledge in

the field is based for calculating the same. It would

indicate that he has not taken the rate of any approved

agency for the purpose of valuing the building. That

apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned Sr.

Government Pleader it is not clear whether the building

is situated in the acquired land of 0.11 Ares or in the

remaining land of 0.19 Ares claimed to have taken

possession from the claimant. The Reference File

contains a Certificate that the structures mentioned in

the acquired land have been verified and after

deducting depreciation, the net value comes to

Rs.58,177/-. The details as to how the said value 2025:KER:36206 L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

arrived at is not shown in the certificate. The said

Certificate is signed by an Executive Engineer without

name and seal and without showing the department or

institution. The certificate is not even dated. The said

Certificate shows that part of the two storied building. It

would indicate that only a part of the two storied

building which is situated in the acquired portion alone

is assessed. The respondents have also not examined

the person who has issued the said certificate to prove

the same. Hence, the said Certificate relied by the

respondents is also not acceptable. Considering the

valuation of the building at Rs.16,02,600/- in Ext.A2 and

considering the valuation of the part of the two storied

building at Rs.58,177/- in the said Certificate, on a 2025:KER:36206 L.A.Appeal No.51 OF 2016

guess work, I am of the view that the claimant can be

awarded an additional compensation of Rs.58,177/-

towards the value of the building in this appeal.

10. Accordingly, I allow this appeal in part, with

proportionate costs, granting the an additional

compensation of Rs.58,177/- to the claimant with all

statutory benefits and interest ordered by the Reference

Court, on the said amount.

Sd/-

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE sms