Kerala High Court
Kunjeliyamma Kuryan vs The State Of Kerala on 19 November, 2014
Author: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Bench: P.N.Ravindran, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938
LA.App..No. 84 of 2016 ()
--------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 166/2011 of II ADDL.SUB
COURT,TRIVANDRUM DATED 19-11-2014
APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS:
----------------------
1. KUNJELIYAMMA KURYAN
D/O.P.T.THOMAS, T.P.11/1071/1, MALIYEKKAL VEETTIL, MEDICAL
COLLEGE, PAZHAYA ROAD, MADATHUVILAKOM MURI, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. KURYAN EEPPEN
S/O.JOHN EAPEN, T.P.11/1071/1, MALIYEKKAL VEETTIL, MEDICAL
COLLEGE, PAZHAYA ROAD, MADATHUVILAKOM MURI, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE SECRETARY
TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPUARM.
R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.M. RASHMI
R2 BY SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
"C.R."
P.N. Ravindran &
Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
L.A.A.No.84 of 2016
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th November, 2016
JUDGMENT
P.N. Ravindran, J.
This appeal arises from the judgment delivered by the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Thiruvananthapuram on 19.11.2014 in L.A.R.No.166 of 2011. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2. A parcel of land, 0.60 Ares in extent, belonging to the appellants and situate in Sy.No.228/3-2 (LA Sy.No.226) of Pattom Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District, was acquired for the purpose of widening the Pattom-Medical College-
Ulloor-Kochulloor Road, pursuant to a notification dated 12.11.2008 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). By award passed on 17.1.2011, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3,29,640/- per Are. Dissatisfied with the land value awarded by the reference court, the land owners received the compensation awarded by him under protest and sought a reference of the dispute regarding land value to the competent civil court. A reference was LAA 84/2016 2 accordingly made to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thiruvananthapuram, where it was taken on file and numbered as L.A.R. No.166 of 2011. It was later made over to the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Thiruvananthapuram.
3. Before the reference court, the land owners contended that as the acquired land is situate adjacent to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and it lies 100 metres away from Medical College junction and in the vicinity of and adjacent thereto are situate important institutions like Sree Chithira Institute of Medical Sciences, Regional Cancer Centre, Dental College, etc., they are entitled to land value at the rate of Rs.50,00,000/- per cent. Before the reference court, the land owners also produced and relied on Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.989 of 2009. The respondents resisted the claim for enhancement of compensation and contended that just and fair compensation has been awarded.
4. Before the reference court no oral evidence was adduced on either side. But, Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.989 of 2009 produced by the land owners and Exts.R1 mahazar, R2 sketch and R3 valuation statement produced by the respondents were marked by consent. After considering the rival contentions and the documentary evidence on record, the reference court refixed the land value at Rs.24,17,100/- per Are, relying on Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.989 of 2009. LAA 84/2016 3 Computed on that basis, the land owners were held entitled to receive the sum of Rs.12,52,475/- as enhanced compensation together with all statutory benefits. The land owners have, dissatisfied with the land value awarded by the reference court, filed this appeal.
5. The main contention raised in the instant appeal is that the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation, taking the land value fixed by a Division Bench of this court in L.A.A.No.331 of 2012 arising from L.A.R.No.412 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Thiruvananthapuram, in respect of the lands acquired for the very same purpose, but pursuant to an earlier notification dated 24.12.2004, as the basis. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another {(2008) 14 SCC 745) and Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Udal and others (AIR 2013 SC 3111), it is contended that the appellants are entitled to have the market value of the acquired lands fixed, by providing an appropriate escalation of the land value fixed by this court in L.A.A.No.331 of 2012 at the rate of 15% per annum cumulatively, taking the date 24.12.2004 as the basis. It is contended that computed on that basis, the land value is liable to be fixed at Rs.42,29,925/- per Are, in respect of the lands involved in the instant appeal. LAA 84/2016 4
6. We heard Sri J. Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt. K.M.Reshmi, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record including the judgments of this court in L.A.A.No.232 of 2012, L.A.A.No.331 of 2012, L.A.A.No.213 of 2015 and L.A.A.No.63 of 2016. Sri J. Harikumar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in respect of lands situate in Pattom village itself, within the local limits of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, which were acquired for the very same purpose pursuant to the notification dated 24.12.2004, a Division Bench of this court has in L.A.A.No.232 of 2012 and L.A.A.No.331 of 2012 fixed land value at Rs.24,17,100/- per Are. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, learned counsel contended that by providing an increase of 15% per annum on a cumulative basis, the land value is liable to be fixed at Rs.42,29,925/- per Are, in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants, which were acquired for the same purpose, pursuant to the notification dated 12.11.2008.
7. It is not in dispute that in respect of the lands acquired for the very same purpose and situate in Pattom Village itself, within the local limits of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, a Division Bench of this court has in L.A.A.Nos.232 and 331 of 2012 fixed the land value at Rs.24,17,100/- per Are. It is also not in dispute that another Division LAA 84/2016 5 Bench of this court of which one of us (P.N.Ravindran, J.) was a member, has by judgment delivered on 22.6.2015 in L.A.A.No.213 of 2015, refixed the land value at Rs.42,29,925/- per Are, taking the land value awarded by this court in L.A.A.Nos.232 and 331 of 2012 as the basis. The lands involved in L.A.A.No.213 of 2015 were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 19.2.2010. In that case also, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3,29,640/- per Are. On appeal, this court refixed the land value based on the land value awarded by this court in L.A.A.Nos.232 and 331 of 2012, viz. Rs.24,17,100/- per Are. The land value fixed by this court in L.A.A.Nos.232 and 331 of 2012 was in respect of lands acquired pursuant to the notification dated 24.12.2004. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, this court held that the claimant in L.A.A.No.213 of 2015 is entitled to have the land value refixed by giving 15% escalation per annum on a cumulative basis. This court held that calculated on that basis the land value as on 19.2.2010 will be Rs.42,29,925/- per Are. The same view was taken by another Division Bench of this court in L.A.A.No.63 of 2016 which was decided on 18.2.2016. Such being the situation, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to have the land value in respect of the acquired lands refixed on the same basis. The interval of time that had passed between 24.12.2004 (the date of the LAA 84/2016 6 notification involved in L.A.A.Nos.232 and 331 of 2012) and 12.11.2008 (the date of the notification in the instant case) is 3 years and 323 days. Computed applying the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above, the land value as on 12.11.2008 will have to be refixed at 172.27% above Rs.24,17,100/-, the land value fixed by this court in L.A.A.Nos.232 and 331 of 2012 in respect of the lands acquired pursuant to the notification dated 24.12.2004, i.e. Rs.24,17,100/- x 172.27 = Rs.41,63,938.17 which we 100 round off to Rs.41,63,940/-. For the sake of clarification, the method of calculation is set out below:-
End of first year } Rs.27,79,665/- being 115% of 24.12.2004 to 23.12.2005 } Rs.24,17,100/- End of second year } Rs.31,96,614.75 being 115% of 24.12.2005 to 23.12.2006 } Rs.27,79,665/- End of third year } Rs.36,76,106.96 being 115% of 24.12.2006 to 23.12.2007 } Rs.31,96,614.75 As on 12.11.2008 (323 days) } Rs.41,63,926.35 being 113.27% (24.12.2007 to 12.11.2008) } of Rs.36,76,106.96 (15/100x323/365x100 = 13.27%) }
We accordingly allow the appeal in part and refix the land value in respect of the acquired lands at Rs.41,63,940/- per Are. The appellants will also be entitled to all statutory benefits except interest under section 28 of the Act for the period of 323 days as directed by this court in the order passed on 24.10.2016 on C.M.Appl.No.134 of LAA 84/2016 7 2016 whereby, the delay of 323 days in filing this appeal was condoned, subject to the aforesaid condition. The decree and judgment passed by the reference court in L.A.R.No.166 of 2011 shall stand modified accordingly. The appellants will also be entitled to proportionate costs in this appeal.
(P.N. Ravindran, Judge) (Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge) kav/