Sunitha K.E vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2010

[Cites 10, Cited by 3]

Kerala High Court

Sunitha K.E vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2010

The captioned appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam in L.A.R.No.22/2008. The claimant is the appellant and the acquisition and requisitioning authorities are respectively the first and second respondents, in this appeal. An extent of 9.12 Ares (22.53 cents) of property comprised in Survey No.666/10 of Kakkanad village was acquired from the appellant for the purpose of expansion of Info Park. Section 4(1) notification was issued in that regard on 16.1.2006. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, viz., `48,900/- per Are (`19798.57 per cent), the appellant L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 2 received the compensation under protest and sought for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court on evaluation of the evidence, enhanced the land value to `1,42,288/- per Are (`57606/- per cent). It is still dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the Reference Court and seeking further enhancement that the captioned appeal has been preferred.

2.Before the Reference Court, the appellant-claimant got herself examined as AW1 besides getting examined the Village Officer as AW2 and the Advocate Commissioner who filed a report therein as AW3. Exts.A1 to A4 were got marked. Exts.C1 and C1A are respectively the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the sketch of the acquired property. On the side of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exts.R1 to R6 were got marked. Exts.A1 to A4 are the copies of the sale deeds relating certain properties sold out from the nearby area either immediately prior to the section 4(1) notification or thereafter. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No.2820/05 of Thrikkakkara Sub Registry dated 13.6.2005. Going by the same, the L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 3 centage value is `11,47,44/-. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed No.3581/05 of the same Sub Registry dated 16.8.2005 and going by the same, the centage value is `1,15,000/-. Ext.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed No.526/06 of the same Sub Registry dated 13.2.2006 wherein the land value per cent is shown as `1.87 lakhs. Ext.A4 dated 24.3.2007 is the certified copy of sale deed No.1406/07 of same Sub Registry relating the sale of a property subsequent to the 4(1) notification whereby an extent of 39.60 Ares of properties comprised in Survey No.118 of Thrikkakkara village was sold for an amount of `4.45 crores, i.e., approximately, `4.5 lakhs per cent. The claimant attempted to establish that there is steady increase in the land value in that area by producing Exts.A1 to A4. That apart, through Ext.C1 report, the appellant attempted to establish the commercial importance of the locality. Before the Reference Court, I.A.No.636/2010 was filed with the prayer to look into the judgment in LAR No.131/2008. The acquired property in LAR No.131/2008 also belonged to the appellant-claimant and it is lying just opposite to L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 4 the property involved in this case and it was produced to drive home the point that the nature of the properties involved in LAR No.131/2008 and in the case on hand, is the same. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the Reference Court though relied on Ext.A2 and had also taken into account the fact that the property involved in LAR No.131/2008 is also a property acquired from the appellant himself and lying near to the property involved in the case on hand, declined to grant enhancement of land value at par with the rate of enhancement made in LAR No. 131/2008 taking note of the land value in Ext.A2. The Reference Court found that the property involved in the case on hand is a reclaimed land unlike the property involved in Ext.A2 and therefore, it could not fetch the same land value as has been given in the case of property involved in Ext.A2. Thereupon Reference Court effected deduction of 50% from the land value shown in Ext.A2 document while fixing the land value of the property involved in the case on hand. The Reference Court found that the property involved in Ext.A2 is a dry land having L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 5 frontage of a public road. At the same time, the land acquired in this case is a reclaimed land and it lies on the side of a private road. Evidently, it was based on such consideration that 50% deduction in land value was effected by the Reference Court. Essentially, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the Reference Court is correct in placing reliance on Ext.A2 document and taking it as a comparable document for the purpose of assessing the land value of the acquired property involved in this appeal, there is absolutely no justification in effecting deduction of 50% from the land value shown in Ext.A2 and fix it as the land value of the property involved in this appeal. In short, it is contended that as per first proviso to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant is entitled to the market value of the land on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification and in the light of Exts.A1 to A4 documents, she is entitled to get enhanced compensation above the rate granted in LAR No.131/2008.

3. It is to be noted that the first respondent, the acquisition L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 6 authority, filed Cross Objection No.78/2013 in this appeal. It is contended therein that the Reference Court, as per the impugned judgment, granted exorbitant and unreasonable enhancement of land value. It is the further contention that Ext.R4 is the very document under which the claimant-appellant purchased the property in question and going by the same, the centage value is only `10,000/-. In such circumstances, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the appellant could not be heard to contend that the property was actually under-valued in Ext.R4 as a ground to substantiate her claim for enhanced compensation. It is also contended that in the light of section 92 of the Evidence Act, it is impermissible to adduce evidence to contradict the recitals in one's own documents. In such circumstances, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that the land value of the property is much more than `10,000/- could not be sustained. The learned counsel for the L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 7 appellant, on the other hand, contended that for the purpose of considering the question of enhancement, the relevant documents which are to be looked into in the light of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is the document pertaining to the period of section 4 (1) notification. The learned counsel also contended that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation [AIR 2001 SC 3341, certain other factors also have to be taken into account for fixing the land value on the basis of the comparable sales method of evaluation of land. Thus, it is obvious from the rival contentions that while the appellant-claimant contends that the Reference Court erred in effecting deduction of 50% from the land value shown in Ext.A2, respondents 1 and 2 contend that the Reference Court had virtually erred in relying on Ext.A2 and to grant enhancement over and above the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is contended by respondents 1 and 2 that a perusal of the document by which the appellant purchased the L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 8 property and the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer would reveal that almost 100% enhancement was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer and in such circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for seeking further enhancement relying on Ext.A2 or based on the judgment in LAR No.131/2008.

4. We will firstly consider the contention raised by the first respondent in the cross objection as the objection thereunder is that the Reference Court had granted exorbitant and unreasonable enhancement of land value. Essentially, the sum and substance of the contention of the respondents is that when the document by which the very property acquired was purchased, reveals the centage value as `10,000/-, the appellant who was the vendee would be entitled only to an appreciation in accordance with the judgments of the appellate court taking into account the lapse of time and at any rate, the appellant could not be heard to contend that the value shown in the document by which she purchased the property, was nothing but an under valuation and it did not reflect the correct market value. The L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 9 learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, contended that even if there is undervaluation, that could not be a reason for rejecting the claim of the appellant for enhancement if the documents adduced in the case establish that the property acquired was having potentiality.

5. We will consider the legal position in the matter taking into account the rival contentions. In the contextual situation, it is only apposite to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samithi, Sahaswan, District Badaun v. Bipin Kumar and another [2004(2) SCC 283]. It was held therein that in terms of the provisions under section 92 of the Evidence Act, a party is precluded from leading evidence contrary to the terms of a written document and therefore, a party who undervalued the property in the document concerned for payment of stamp duty is precluded from claiming that his own document did not reflect the correct market value. Contextually, the maxims 'Allegans contraria non est L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 10 audiendus' means 'he is not to be heard who alleges things contrary to each other' and 'nullus commodum capere protest de injuria sua propria' means 'no man can take advantage of his own wrong' have to be borne in mind, in view of Ext.R4 while appreciating the contention of the appellant based on Ext.A2. The former maxim which forms the basis of the doctrine of estoppel is an elementary rule of logic, being applied frequently in Courts of justice. Based on the prompting of one's own private interest, none could be permitted to blow hot and cold, in respect of the same transaction on different occasions. The latter maxim is one of the salient tenets of equity and hence, in the normal course, one cannot secure assistance of a court of law for enjoying the fruit of his own wrong. (See the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asok Kapil v. Sanaullah [(1996) 3 SCC 342]. Normally, a liberal interpretation has to be afforded, based on this maxim to prevent a wrongdoer from taking advantage of his own wrong. The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to resist the contention that the appellant, being a party who undervalued the L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 11 property purchased by her as per Ext.R4 viz., the property that was acquired by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Executive Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and others reported in (2010) 15 SCC

60. Paragraph 13 therein was drawn to our attention It, in so far as, relevant reads thus:-

"The said contention cannot be accepted. When a sale transaction is relied upon by exhibiting the sale deed relating to the transaction, the consideration mentioned therein cannot be ignored, nor can a higher sale price inferred merely because stamp duty has been paid on a higher value. Stamp duty with reference to a higher value may be paid for a variety of reasons. For example, if a general guideline price had been fixed for a particular locality, and because the plot fell in such a locality, the Sub-Registrar might have insisted upon payment of stamp duty on a higher value, even though the sale price may be the true value. In the absence of any evidence that the sale price of Rs.16,000/- mentioned in the sale deed was less than the actual market value and in the absence of proof of undervaluation or proof that the sale was a distress sale, it is not possible to L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 12 ignore the sale price mentioned in the sale deed."

(emphasis added) A careful scrutiny or the said paragraph would reveal that it will not fully support the appellant's contention. The words 'and in the absence of proof of undervaluation' would reveal that when there is proof for that it is possible to ignore the sale price mentioned in the sale deed. Here, no such proof is required as it is the precise case of the appellant that she undervalued the property purchased under Ext.R4. In the light of section 92 of the Evidence Act and the maxims of law referred hereinbefore as also the decision of the Apex Court in Bipin Kumar's case (supra), it can normally be held that the appellant was precluded from leading any evidence contrary to the terms of the document viz., Ext.R4 and to establish that it did not reflect the correct market value and what was done thereunder was an undervaluation. It is also to be noted that in the decision in Bipin Kumar's case, the Apex Court held that parties who have undervalued L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 13 their documents for payment of stamp duty are precluded from claiming that their own documents do not reflect the correct market value, essentially based on the doctrine of estoppel and then went on, to observe that permitting such parties to let in evidence contrary to the terms of written statement would amount to giving such parties a premium to their dishonesty. A careful scrutiny of the judgment in Bipin Kumar's case would reveal that even after arriving at such findings, the Hon'ble Apex Court went on to hold that merely because the appellant had taken up such a contention or the property was under valued that would not be and could not be a reason for the court not to look into the other evidence if the party had adduced evidence to establish high potentiality of the land in question. This position is evident from paragraph 8 of the said decision. In that case, virtually, deprecating the practice of making under valuation in a document and also observing that acknowledging the same would amount to granting a premium to dishonesty, the Apex Court went on to consider the other evidence adduced to establish high potentiality of the land in L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 14 question. Therefore, even while following the dictum in Bipin Kumar's case (supra) that parties who have undervalued their documents for payment of stamp duty are precluded from claiming that their own documents do not reflect the correct market value the other evidence, if any, adduced would establish high potentiality of the land concerned, could be considered. Hence, based on the said decision itself, the question whether Exts.A1 to A4 or any other document now, produced at the appellate stage could be looked into and relied on as evidence of high potentiality for the purpose of considering the claim for enhancement of compensation, has to be considered. Though the appellant cannot therefore, be permitted to take advantage of her own wrong in under valuing the property purchased by her under Ext.R4 and also to allege things contrary to Ext.A2 they cannot be reasons for rejecting the claim of the appellant based on other evidence, if any, for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the land acquired was having high potentiality. The L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 15 discussion as above would reveal absence of merits in the contentions of the cross-objector viz., the first respondent in the appeal. In other words, the contention in the cross-objection to the effect that having purchased the property in question under Ext.R4, the appellant- claimant is not entitled to seek for enhanced compensation especially when 100% enhancement with reference to the value in Ext.R4 was given by the Land Acquisition Officer, cannot be a reason for us to hold the appeal as completely meritless.

6. Now, we will consider the question whether the impugned judgment and decree is to be interfered with. Certainly, it depends upon the question whether the appellant has succeeded in establishing that the property in question was having high potentiality. Surely, in that regard, the first question is whether Annexures 1 to 4 can be received as additional evidence for considering the aforesaid question. The appellant had filed two interlocutory applications in this appeal. I.A.No.3117 of 2010 has been filed to receive additional evidence in the appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 16 The appellant seeks to produce true copy of the Document No.4178 of 2006 dated 11.12.2006 of S.R.O., Thrikkakara (Annexure-1), True copy of Document No.3309/2007 dated 18.7.2007 of S.R.O, Thrikkakara (Annexure-2), True copy of Document No.4989/2007 dated 12.12.2007 (Annexure-3), True copy of Document No.3089/2008 dated 21.11.2008 of S.R.O, Thrikkakara (Annexure-4) and True copy of list of sale deed documents (Annexure-5). Evidently,Annexures-1 to 4 are sale deeds subsequent to the section 4 (1) notification dated 16.1.2006. Annexure-5 is only a copy of list of sale deed documents. While considering the question whether they could be received as additional evidence in this appeal, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh and others v. State of Punjab reported in (1996) 10 SCC 37 assumes relevance. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held:-

"......it is common knowledge that it would take a long time for publication of the notification under section 4(1). In the meanwhile it would be known to the villagers that the land would be L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 17 under acquisition. Therefore, it would be obvious that these documents were brought into existence to inflate the market value. Obvious, therefore, none of the persons connected with the documents has been examined. There is no proof of passing of the consideration thereunder or the circumstances in which the documents came to be executed. Under these circumstances, all the documents are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. If they are excluded, the only other evidence is the oral evidence. It is not in dispute that the land situated in the neighbouring village and acquired for the same purpose fetched compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre in respect of the Chahi land and Rs.9000/- and Rs.10,000/- for Baravi land etc. That judgment of the High Court has become final. Under those circumstances, the High Court was well justified in relying upon that document and in upholding the award of the Collector but with modification as indicated:"

7. In the case on hand, as already noticed, the aforesaid documents were all executed subsequent to the publication of section 4(1) notification on 16.1.2006. None of the persons connected with the documents were examined and naturally, there is no proof of passing of the consideration thereunder or the circumstances in which L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 18 the documents came to be executed. Going by section 23 of the Act which specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation, the principal consideration must be the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Going by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Major General Kapil Mehra and others v. Union of India and another reported in (2015) 2 SCC 262, where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. In this case, Annexures-1 to 4 documents already became part of the records and are available for comparison and for determining the just and reasonable compensation. In such circumstances, it can only be said L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 19 that such sale instances are not required to be admitted in evidence for the purpose of determining just and reasonable compensation, at this appellate stage. A perusal of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure would reveal that when the situation under Order XLI Rule 27(i)(a) or (aa) do not arise and the Appellate Court does not require production of any document or examination of any witness to enable it to pronounce the judgment, exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is absolutely unwarranted in the absence of any other substantial cause. The term 'substantial cause' has been construed in Wasawa Singh v. Jagir Singh reported in AIR 1965 Punj. 494. It was held that the words 'substantial cause' could be construed to mean that the power to allow additional evidence is exercised when any point is required to be cleared up in the interest of justice. The cause need not be ejusdem generis with the cause stated in the earlier part of the rule and the expression 'any other substantial cause' confers a wide discretion on the Appellate Court to L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 20 admit additional evidence when the ends of justice require it. At the same time, it is relevant to refer to the decisions of the High Court of Gujrat in Jasubha Manubha v. Raisingh Baubha reported in 1976 Guj.140. In that decision, it was held that the expression 'substantial justice' did not mean that further opportunity should be given to a party to fill up the lacuna caused by his indifference and negligence. The documents sought to be marked and admitted in evidence, were executed prior to the passing of the impugned judgment and after the publication of section 4(1) notification. In short, none of the requirements under Order XLI Rule 27 has been satisfied in this case, going by the affidavit accompanying the aforesaid petition. We do not, therefore, find any reason to allow the appellant to produce additional evidence. Consequently, I.A.No.3117 of 2010 is dismissed.

8. As noticed hereinbefore, section 4(1) notification was published on 16.1.2006. Exts.A1 to A3 are documents prior to the publication of section 4(1) notification. The appellant purchased the L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 21 property in the year 2005 i.e., on 21.3.2005 under Ext.R4. As noticed hereinbefore, going by Ext.A1, the centage value is `1,14,744/- and going by Exts.A2 and A3, the centage value has gone up respectively to `1,15,000/- and `1.87 lakhs. Essentially, the said documents would reveal that there was steady increase in the land value in that area. Even then, another question has to be looked into viz., whether the subsequent transactions were effected solely for the purpose of making out a case of inflation in the market value. If the answer is in the affirmative certainly such document cannot be looked into for the purpose of considering the question of enhancement of compensation. A careful examination of Exts.A1 to A4 would not reveal any attempt to inflate the market value. The properties involved in the those transactions are not small extent of land. Prior to the 4(1) notification, if small extent of land is sold out for exorbitant price, it would be an indication that such transactions are effected solely for the purpose of establishing inflation in the market value. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Reference Court cannot be said to have L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 22 committed an error in relying on Ext.A2 document.

9. The next question to be considered is whether the Reference Court had erred in effecting 50% deduction even while relying on Ext.A2 document. In a bid to establish that it is a patent error and to support the contention that still further enhancement of the land value has to be made relying on Ext.A4, the learned counsel for the appellant advanced arguments relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab [2012 (2) KLT 542 SC]. It is contended that for fixing the compensation for the acquired land, section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, is relevant. It is contended that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, the highest of the exemplars is to be accepted if it satisfies the conditions under section 23 of the Act and if it reflects a bona fide transaction. The learned counsel for the second respondent resisted the said contention placing reliance on the decision in Nirmal Singh and others v. State of Haryana [2015(2) SCC 160]. It is L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 23 contended that in the light of the decision in Nirmal Singh's case, for determining just and reasonable compensation for acquired lands on the basis of sale exemplars, average of sale consideration mentioned in such sale exemplars that are relevant with reference to the date of issue of notification can be taken. Further it was held therein that such sale instances could be considered subject to reasonable deductions towards developmental costs and evidence that they could be compared with the entire land in terms of its vicinity, comparable benefits and advantages. After going through the judgment in Nirmal Singh's case, it is evident that the Apex Court virtually laid such a dictum in a situation where among the exemplars some pertain to acquisition of large tract land and the other pertains to small extent of land. In the decision in Major General Kapil Mehra and others v. Union of India and another [2015(2) SCC 262], the Apex Court held that certain factors that merits consideration for making comparable sales are as follows:-

L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 24

(i) exemplar sale should be within reasonable time of date of issuance of notification under section 4(1)

(ii)it should be bona fide transaction

(iii)it should be of land acquired or of land adjacent to land acquired

(iv)it should possess similar advantages

10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, we will scan the documents produced by the appellant before the Reference Court for supporting the claim for enhancement. It is evident from Ext.A4 that the property involved in the said transaction was a dry land and a public road is available in front of that property. But at the same time, the land in question is indisputably a reclaimed land. That apart, there is no public road frontage for the said property. But at the same time, it is evident that there is road access even to the land in question and the land acquired lies near a private lane. In other words, through the said path, there is access to public road. The decisions referred above would reveal that while making comparison, the fact whether the land involved in the other document lies adjacent to the land acquired, was to be looked into. Evidently, while L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 25 considering the contention of the appellant that Ext.A4 should be looked into, the Reference Court virtually looked into that question and ultimately found that the properties involved in Ext.A2 and A1 lies near to the land acquired and the land involved in Ext.A4 lies far away from the acquired property. Add to it, the Reference Court noticed that unlike the land involved in that document, in this case, the land involved in Ext.A4 is a dry land and there is public road frontage. In such circumstances, we do not find any error or illegality in the action of the Reference Court in relying only on Ext.A2.

11. Now, what survives for further consideration is whether the impugned judgment and decree whereby 50% deduction is made from the land shown in Ext.A2 is sustainable. In other words, whether the appellant is also entitled to get land value at par with the land value shown in Ext.A2. In that context, on making a comparison of the properties involved in Ext.A2 and the property acquired from the possession of the appellant involved in this case, it would reveal that that both the properties cannot be said to be of the same nature. It is L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 26 to be noted that the property involved in Ext.A2 is also a dry land and it is also to be noted that it lies on the side of a public road. As regards the property involved in this case acquired from the possession of the appellant, it is a reclaimed garden land and it is not having any public road frontage. It actually abuts a private pathway. But at the same time, through the pathway there is access to the public road. Taking into account all such circumstances, we are also of the view that a certain amount of deduction has to be made from the land value shown in Ext.A2 while fixing the land value of the property involved in this case. Therefore, the Reference Court is right in making a deduction. But at the same time, on comparison of the nature of the properties involved, we are of the view that the potentiality of the property has also to be taken into account while considering the land value of the property involved in this case. Indisputably, the following institutions are situating nearer to the land acquired:- The Collectorate, District Panchayat Office, Bus Stand, KSEB, Registry Office, Village Office, Police Station etc. situate L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 27 about two kilometres away from the acquired land. Within a distance of = a kilometer, there are two schools. There is also a Juma masjid. Not far away from the acquired land, Rajagiri School of Engineering College is situated. Taking into account all such circumstances, including potentiality of the acquired property, we are of the view that the reference court ought not to have effected 50% deduction from the land value shown in Ext.A2 while fixing the land value of the properties acquired from the possession of the appellant. As noticed hereinberfore, the acquired property abuts a private lane and through the said path the public road is accessible. Hence, according to us, instead of deducting 50% from the land value shown in Ext.A2, only 30% ought to be deducted from the land value for the purpose of fixing the land value per cent of the property in question. Based on such calculation, the land value per cent of the property acquired from the possession of the appellant would be `80,500/-. In view of the fixation of the land value as above, for the entire extent of land acquired from the appellant involved in this case she would be entitled L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 28 to get enhanced amount of `18,13,343/-. Under the reference order already an award was passed for an amount of `12,97,666/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the balance amount of `5,15,677/-. The appellant is entitled to get all statutory benefits in respect of said enhanced amount. There will be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) Sd/-


                                   K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH
                                              (JUDGE)

spc/

L.A.A.1012/2010 &
Cross Objection 78/2013    29




                              C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

L.A.A.1012/2010 &
Cross Objection 78/2013    30




                              JUDGMENT

                              September,2010

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court