Kerala High Court
Mulleri Shylaja vs Government Of Kerala on 28 November, 2019
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
LA.App..No.217 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 69/2011 DATED 20-08-2014 OF
THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THALASSERY
APPELLANTS:
1 MULLERI SHYLAJA,
AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT
'SHEEBALAYAM', KARAPERAVOOR P.O.,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 MULLERI SREEJA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O LATE
GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT 'SHEEBALAYAM',
KARAPERAVOOR P.O, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
SRI.ANIL GEORGE
SRI.K.S.SUMEESH
SRI.T.ANCY
SMT.NIVYA VALSAN
SMT.N.B.FATHIMA SULFATH
SRI.DINIC J.COYCARA
RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KANNUR - 670002.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.
3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
AIRPORT NO.1, MATTANNUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670702.
4 V.K.KANNAN NAMBIAR,
VARAKKOTH, KEEZHALLUR P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670595
(4TH RESPONDENT IS REMOVED FROM THE PARTY
ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER
DATED 3.10.2019 IN IA 1/2019)
R1, R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
SMT DEEPA N- SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
LAA No.217 OF 2018 2
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in L.A.R.No.69 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judges' Court, Thalassery. The property having an extent of 0.2215 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.19 of Keezhallur Village owned by the appellants/claimants was acquired for the purpose of construction of Kannur Airport. Section 4(1) notification is one dated 05.12.2007. The land was taken possession on 08.07.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs.9,45,365/-, vide award No.3/2010 dated 11.06.2010, fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.9,105/- per cent. After accepting the compensation under protest, the claimants sought for reference, claiming the land value at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per cent. The reference court in L.A.R.No.69 of 2011 re-fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.17,600/- per cent. Seeking further enhancement, the appellants/claimants are before this Court in this appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and also the learned LAA No.217 OF 2018 3 Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel on both sides that the issue raised in this appeal is covered in favour of the appellants by a common judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.01.2018 in LAA No.11 of 2013 and connected cases. Paragraph 10 of the said decision reads thus;
"10. Before deciding the question regarding reasonableness or justifiability of the land value fixed for the acquired properties, we have to consider the sustainability of the categorisation made by the LAO. As observed above, it has come out in evidence in clear terms that, except in a few cases, the acquired properties are having frontage either to the panchayat road or to mud roads leading to the panchayat road. The basis for the categorization made by the LAO is the facility for access to road. The catergorisation described with respect to properties included in category 'A' is; "with the facility for transportation". With respect to 'B' category, it is described as; "interior areas with lesser transportation facility". We are of the opinion that the basis mentioned as above with respect to the categorization is too vague and unrealistic. The LAO ought to have categorized the property based on availability road frontage/road access. As observed above, this Court is convinced that, except in few cases, the acquired lands are having road frontage. It has also come out in evidence that, the properties covered under Exts.A1 to A4 are properties without having any road frontage or direct access to any roads. Therefore we have no hesitation LAA No.217 OF 2018 4 to hold that, the acquired properties which are having road frontage are situated in a better prominence than the properties covered under Exts.A1 to A4. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that, the acquired land in some of the cases, which are not situated with any direct access to any of the roads, are similar in nature and similarly situated with that of the properties covered under Exts.A1 to A4. Hence it is to be held that, land value of properties which are having no direct access to any road need to be fixed in par with the value reflected in Exts.A1 to A4, less the component of solatium included in the negotiated price. At the same time those properties having direct road access need to be given with an enhanced land value. The value reflected in Exts.A1 to A4 is Rs.27,000/- per cent. By excluding the 30% component of solatium included in the negotiated value of purchase, the land value will work out to Rs.20,769.23, which can be rounded off to Rs.20,770/-. We are inclined to fix the land value with respect to acquired properties covered under the above appeals, which are not having direct road access, at the above said amount. With respect to properties having road access (road frontage either to Panchayat Road or to any mud road leading to the Panchayat road) we are inclined to fix the land value at 25% above the value so fixed. Thus, the land value in those cases will work out to Rs.25,962.50 per cent, which can be rounded off to Rs.25,963/-."
(underline supplied)
4. The learned counsel on both sides would also submit that, since the property owned by the appellants is LAA No.217 OF 2018 5 having road access (road frontage to Panchayat road), the land value can be re-fixed as Rs.25,963/- per cent, as fixed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and taking note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.No.11 of 2013 and connected cases, in which the land value of the property having road access (road frontage to Panchayat road or any mud road leading to Panchayat road) has been fixed as Rs.25,963/- per cent, this appeal is allowed by re-fixing the land value for the acquired land, having an extent of 0.2215 hectares comprised in Re-Survey No.19 of Keezhallur Village, at the rate of Rs.25,963/- per cent, with all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the total enhanced compensation to which the appellants/claimants become eligible by virtue of this judgment.
The appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE yd