Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013 2ND MAGHA 193 LA.App..No. 480 of 2012 (D) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR.49/2009 of SUB COURT, PALA DATED 23 12-2010 APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------ THOMAS S/O.MATHEW,KOTTARATHIL,MIZHATHADIYOOR KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. E.M. ABDUL KHADER THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan & K. Harilal, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= L.A.A. No. 480 of 2012 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 22nd day of January, 2013. JUDGMENT
Siri Jagan, J.
The claimant in L.A.R. No. 49/2009 before the Sub Court, Pala, is the appellant herein. The property belonging to the appellant was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. As per the revenue records as also the title deed of the appellant, the property was shown as wet land. But the appellant had converted it into dry land as on the date of 4(1) Notification. The property was wet land originally. According to the appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the reference court classified the lands acquired under the notification into dry land and wet land and for dry land Rs. 5 lakhs per are was fixed as the land value and for wet land, Rs. 3 lakhs per are. The reference Court accepted the fact that the land acquired from the appellant though was a wet land as per the revenue records and the title deeds, was actually dry land as on the date of acquisition. But on the ground that the appellant converted the land without obtaining permission from the District Collector, compensation was awarded only as applicable to wet land. The appellant is aggrieved by the same. The appellant submits that insofar as what has been acquired from the appellant is dry land, the appellant is entitled to compensation as applicable to dry land.
2. The learned Government Pleader would oppose the contentions of the appellant. According to him, the nature of the L.A.A. No. 480 of 2012 -:
2. :- land as described in the revenue records as well as in the title deeds is the relevant criteria for deciding the land value. It is submitted that because the land was originally wet land and it was illegally converted into dry land, naturally, the land will not fetch the price as a dry land. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the Sub Court has correctly fixed the land value as applicable to wet land.
3. We have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. From the judgment of the Sub Court, it is clear that the land at the time of acquisition was dry land. It is also clear that originally it was wet land and it was converted by the appellant into dry land. The appellant could not satisfy the Sub Court that the conversion was with permission from the District Collector. Admittedly, the appellant purchased the land in 1967 as wet land and converted the same later on. As per the Kerala Land Utilization Order, which came into force on 17.6.1967, land cultivated with food crops three years prior to the coming into force of the Land Utilization Order could not have been converted without obtaining permission from the District Collector. Admittedly, the appellant did not obtain permission for conversion of the land. It is common knowledge that when a party applies for permit to construct a building in a converted land which, if as per revenue records is paddy land and if there was no permission for such conversion, the local authority would deny permit for such construction. L.A.A. No. 480 of 2012 -:
3. :- In case of such land, naturally, an intending purchaser would not pay the market price as applicable to other dry lands in the area. At the same time, the land being admittedly dry land, it cannot be said that it would fetch market value only as wet land. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to fix the land value at Rs. 4 lakhs per are. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the Sub Court fixing the land value of the appellant's property as Rs. 4 lakhs per are instead of Rs. 3 lakhs per are. Needless to say, the appellant would be entitled to the statutory benefits as applicable to the land value so fixed. The appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Sd/- K. Harilal, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.