Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE11H DAY OF DECEMBER201420TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 LA.App..No. 736 of 2012 (D) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE IN LAR722002 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA DATED1906-2012 APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN L.A.R.: --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPL. THASILDAR (LA) INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.PADMARAJ.
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS IN LAR: ----------------------------- 1. MATHAN JOSEPH, PULLATTU THEKKEVALYARA, PALLIPPURAM-688 541 2. REMADEVI, W/O.ASOKAN, SWAYAMPRABHA MANDIRAM, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM68858. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1112-2014, ALONG WITH L.A.A. 75/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AL/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V.ASHA, JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A. No.75/13, 379/13, 390/13, 454/13 & 736/12, & Cross Objection No. 204/14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December 2014 JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J., These appeals are respectively from the judgment in LAR11102,118/02& 72 /2002. The claimants are seeking further enhancement whereas the State has challenged the judgment of the reference court in LAR No. 72/02 by filing LAA73612. L.A.A.75/13 is by challenging the judgment in LAR11112 and by filing Cross Objection 204/14 the judgment in L.A.R.118/02.
2. We have considered the matters together since the acquisition is for the same purpose.
3. We heard Sri. Joshy N.Thomas, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri. Joby Cyriac for the requisitioning authority and learned Sr.Government Pleader Sri. Padmaraj. In LAR7202 and in other cases, the properties are categorised as item No. 2 in block No.3. The acquisition is for the purpose of Industrial Growth Centre, Pallipuram. The notification under Section 4(1) is L.A.A. No.736 of 2014 :2: dated 24.1.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.10950/- per Are which was enhanced by the trial court to Rs.28,000/- per Are.
4. Sri.Joshy N.Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that in LAR No.116/02 which is the leading case, the trial court had granted land value at the rate of Rs. 29982/- whereas in this case, a slight reduction was given which is not justified. It is submitted that the judgment in LAR No. 116/02 has been confirmed by this Court in LAA No. 418/06. It is also brought to our notice that the appeal filed by requisition authority, from the same judgment as LAA No. 419/06 was dismissed upholding the land value in the judgment reported in The Managing Director, K.S.A.I.D.C., Trivandrum v. Janakiamma Panjakshiamma & Others (2007(3) KLJ594. Therein this Court confirmed the award passed by the reference court at Rs.29,000/-per Are and our attention was taken to the details of the evidence discussed in the judgment.
5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the trial court has made a distinction purely because of the fact that the property is not on having road frontage of Cherthala- L.A.A. No.736 of 2014 :3: Arookutty road whereas the same is situated on the side of the Ottapunna-Thavanakkadavu road. According to the learned counsel, it cannot be said that the property is in less important locality. The Ottappuna junction is an important locality and the acquired properties are only at a distance of 100 metres from the said junction. It is submitted that the court below has fixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 28,000/-per Are even though, it was found that the categorisation of the property by the Land Acquisition Officer as property having no road frontage is not correct. At any rate, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court in the appeal filed by the requisitioning authority, had confirmed the land value in the connected LAR No.116/02, the same value ought to have been adopted. It is alternately submitted that even if this Court do not agree with the above argument, even then, fixation of the land value at the rate of Rs. 28,000/- per are is too low.
6. Learned Sr.Government pleader Sri.Padmaraj submitted that actually,the properties are not having road frontage to Cherthala-Arookutty road, which is more important than the road leading to Thavanakkadavu from Ottappuna. According to the L.A.A. No.736 of 2014 :4: learned Sr.Government Pleader and going by the evidence also it can be easily seen that two kudikidappus are situated adjacent to the properties in question which denies the road frontage to the acquired property.
7. We find that the trial court has rendered a common judgment in LAR Nos. 72/02, 111/202 and 118/02. The parties have led evidence documentary and oral. AW1to 4 and RW wasexamined.Exts.A1 to A6 and R1 to R6 have been marked. The court also relied upon Ext.X1 and X2.
8. Actually, this Court had on an earlier occasion in judgment in LAA No. 501/02,562 &666/08 remanded the matter for fresh consideration, in the light of the argument of the appellant that the categorisation is not justifiable as per the factual situation available on the ground. Therefore, the trial court has discussed the evidence in detail which is evident from paragraph 18 on wards. After referring to the arguments of the learned Government Pleader, also, the finding rendered is that at the time of the acquisition of the acquired property was having road frontage. Our attention was invited to the report of the Commissioner. One of the aspects reported by the Commissioner L.A.A. No.736 of 2014 :5: is the access from Ottappuna-Thavanakadavu road. Even though, two kudikidappus are situated still the properties are having road frontage by 88ft. Even though, learned Sr. Government Pleader submitted that the finding is that the properties are not having road frontage to the Ottappuna- Thavanakkadavu road, we do not agree.
9. For other aspects, learned Sr.Government pleader pointed out that to arrive at a land value, the court has not indicated any data or has not discussed the evidence. In paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Court was of the opinion that the land value can be fixed at the rate of Rs.28,000/- per Are. To arrive at the said amount, the Court considered the fact that the acquired property is lying at 75 metres away from the Arookutty-Cherthala road. After noticing that the importance of the locality and its potentialities, having spoken to by the claimants and the witnesses, and supported by RW1 also, it was held that it is not a ground to treat the acquired property in category No. I and finally by stating that it is a little away from the main road Rs.28,000/- has been awarded.
10. Of course, the evidence was before the trial court as per L.A.A. No.736 of 2014 :6: documents produced by the claimants. Ext.A6 is the certified copy of the judgment in LAR No.116/02. Therefore, evidently, the court was having in mind the award made by the reference court in the said case which was confirmed by this Court in the judgment we referred to above. Evidently, by relying upon the judgment the market value has been fixed.
11. Then the question is whether the claimants are entitled to further enhancement viz.,equal to the award amount granted in L.A.R No. 116/02. Learned Sr.Government Pleader Sri. Padmaraj and counsel for the requisitioning authority Sri. Cyriac submitted that the important road is Cherthala -Arookutty road and it cannot be said that the acquired property is having frontage to the said road and therefore,considering the difference in value, fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, with regard to category No.I which have road frontage to Cherthala-Arookutty road, the claimant cannot claim equal value.
12. We have considered the rival submissions in this regard. Even going by the findings of te trial court, the property is 75 metres away from the Arookuty-Cherthala road, and it is clear from the report of the Commissioner that the property lies L.A.A. No.736 of 2014 :7:
100. metres away from the Ottappuna junction. It is situated south of the said road. Going by the answer to point No. 7, in the Commissioner's report, it is clear that 200 metres within the junction, there are number of important institutions like Panchayat office, Homeo Hospital, Co-operative Society, Shopping complex and other trading centres. The Malabar Cement Factory is about 100 metres north of the acquired property and on the south western side there is a Temple. The newly proposed Engineering College is under construction is about 600 metres north to the acquired property. It is therefore, clear that the acquired property has got potential and having importance also. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the property is totally less important than the property on the side of the Cherthala- Arookutty road. But a marginal decrease can be made. But considering the fact that it is on the side of the road with branches from Ottappunna junction and not on the side of the Cherthala-Arookutty road a percentage of reduction will have to be granted. The market value of Rs. 29,000/- per Are is a reasonable amount as far as the acquired properties are L.A.A. No.736 of 2014 :8: concerned. Therefore, in modification of the judgment of the court we fix the land value of the acquired property involved in LAR Nos. 72,111 & 118/2002 at Rs. 29,000/- per Are and the claimants will also be entitled to all statutory benefits as held by the trial court. Therefore, L.A.A. Nos.379,390 & 454/13 are allowed and L.A.A. Nos. 736/2012, 75/2013 and Cross objection 204/14 are dismissed.
13. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Joshy that the Land Acquisition Officer has not granted the benefit of Section 23(1) A of the Land Acquisition Act. We hold that the claimants are entitled for all the statutory benefits for the period covered by the provision depending upon the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the date of the Award or the date of taking possession. The details will be worked out in execution.
14. In L.A.A. 454/13, there is a delay of 171 days in filing the appeal and while condoning the delay, a Division Bench of this Court by interim order dated 11.1.2013 in CMA No. 539/13 made it conditional that during the period of delay, the appellant will not be entitled to be paid statutory interest, under Section L.A.A. No.736 of 2014 :9:
28. We reiterate the same.
15. Similarly in L.A.A.390/13, the period of delay is 236 days in filing the appeal. During the said period also, the claimant will not be entitled for interest under Section 28. The parties will bear their respective costs in the appeal. Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) Sd/- P.V.ASHA (JUDGE) AL/- True copy P.A to Judge