Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs P.P. Paulose on 7 November, 2017
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/16TH KARTHIKA, 1939
LA.App..No. 107 of 2012 ()
---------------------------
LAR. NO.155/2009 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.
......
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR:
-----------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM.
BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN.
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. P.P. PAULOSE,
S/O.PAPPACHAN, PYNADATH HOUSE,
MAIKKAVU, VAPPALASSERY,
NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, PIN-683 590.
2. P.P. VARGHESE,
S/O.PAPPACHAN, PYNADATH HOUSE,
MAIKKAVU, VAPPALASSERY,
NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, PIN-683 590.
3. P.P. JOY,
S/O.PAPPACHAN, PYNADATH HOUSE,
MAIKKAVU, VAPPALASSERY,
NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, PIN-683 590.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION),
SOUTHERN RAILWAY.
R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.PAUL JACOB,
SRI.PEARL K.DAVIS,
SRI.LAIJA GEORGE .K.
R4 BY SRI.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED. S.
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 14/08/2017, ALONG WITH LAA NO.139 OF 2012 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 07/11/2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
&
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, J
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L.A.A.Nos.107, 139, 165, 208, 245,
715, 740 of 2012, 138, 159, 168, 169,
177, 190, 194, 196, 198, 203, 204, 217,
220, 227, 254, 273, 296, 323, 494, 502,
510, 523, 537, 539, 542, 581, 586, 603,
616, 659 of 2013, 54, 55, 75, 315 of 2014
&
Cross Objection Nos.70 of 2012
in LAA No.107 of 2012, 68 of 2012
in LAA No.165 of 2012,
216 of 2014 in LAA No.502 of 2013,
217 of 2014 in LAA No.542 of 2013,
20 of 2015 in LAA No.254 of 2013,
46 of 2015 in LAA No.539 of 2013
&
63 of 2015 in LAA No.204 of 2013
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of November 2017
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J These batch of cases concern acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of Angamaly-Sabari railway line as per notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') published on 14/11/2006. The claimants objected to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'LAO') and the matter was referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the LA Act. The appeals are L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 2 filed challenging the judgment of the Reference Court. Most of the appeals are filed by the State and some of the claimants have also filed appeals as well as Cross Objection. LAA No.139/2012, 208/2012, 245/2012 and 581/2013 are the claimant appeals. Cross objection had been filed in LAA Nos.107/2012, 165/2012, 204/2013, 254/2013, 502/2013, 539/2013 and 542/2013. We are, in the present appeals dealing with land acquired from Nedumbassery and Angamaly Villages.
2. In these appeals, compensation is claimed towards value of land, value of buildings as well as for injurious affection. Initially, while stating the facts of each case, we shall consider the individual claims with reference to the value of structures as well as the award of injurious affection. The enhancement as far as land value is concerned, shall be considered separately, as the acquisition comes under a single notification and the land value had been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by categorising the land into different categories.
3. Part A deals with land acquired from Nedumbassery Village and Part B deals with land involved in Angamaly Village. L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 3 PART- A. Nedumbassery Village A.1.1. L.A.A.No.107/2012 and Cross Objection No.70/2012 arise from L.A.R.No.155/2009. The extent of land acquired is 0.67 Ares. LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,15,087/- per Are and on reference the Sub Court enhanced the land value at Rs.3,71,800/- per Are. Before the Court below, claimants relied upon Ext.A1 which is sale deed No.1448/2004 dated 23/3/2004, Ext.A2 sale deed No.5922/2005 and Ext.A3, the judgment in LAR No.145/2007 and connected cases. Court below found that the value covered by Ext.A1 property can be relied upon after making appropriate deductions and accordingly, deducted 45% of the value of property taking into account the dissimilarities between the land covered by Ext.A1 and acquired land, and fixed the land value at Rs.2,86,000/- per Are. Thereafter, an addition of 30% was granted taking into account the time gap and fixed the land value at Rs.3,75,800/- per Are. Court below further found that the claimants were not entitled for injurious affection. Cross Objection No.70/2012 has been filed by the claimant whereby they claim further land value at Rs.1,61,878/- per Are and L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 4 compensation for injurious affection at Rs.5,059/- per Are for the balance extent of 35.33 Ares.
A-1.2. As far as injurious affection of property is concerned, the balance extent of property remaining with the claimant was not true. Only a rough sketch was prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. The Court below observed that it is not safe to rely upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The claimant had a contention that the access of his property from the road has been lost on account of acquisition. The Court below observed that the road frontage after acquisition is 1.5 metres but there is no evidence to show that prior to acquisition the claimant had more road frontage. Since the claim for injurious affection had been rejected for valid reasons, we confirm the said finding.
A-2.1. L.A.A.No.139/2012 has been filed by the claimant in L.A.R.No.70/2009 dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by the Court below. The land involved is 0.70 Ares. LAO awarded the land value at Rs.2,06,821/- per Are which was enhanced to Rs.3,25,208/- per Are. In the appeal, the claimant claimed land value at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per cent and also injurious L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 5 affection for 11.60 cents at Rs.5,000/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, claimant relied upon Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No.1448/2004 dated 23/03/2004. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed No.5920/2005 dated 27/11/2005 and Ext.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed No.8359/2007 dated 04/12/2007. He also examined AWs 1 to 3. Respondent relied upon Exts.R1 to R8. Exts.C1, C1(a) and C1(b) were marked as court exhibits.
A-2.2. Court below observed that the acquired property is a dry land and had a building, it has direct road access on the southern side which is a Panchayat road. The property is 2 Kms away from the National Highway and 1.5 Kms away from Angamaly town. Municipal road passes about 20 metres eastwards from the acquired property. Cochin International Airport is situated at a distance of 1.5 Kms. As per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the Airport is situated within a distance of 2 kms. As far as Ext.A1 is concerned, it is a property having an extent of 5 Ares with a residential building sold for a consideration of Rs.45 lakhs in which the value of building is L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 6 stated to be Rs.19 lakhs. The property is dry land. The property covered by Ext.A1 situates within a radius of 400 metres away from National Highway and further, it is in a prime residential area, 1 Km away from the Cochin International Airport and 800 metres away from Angamaly Town. The value of the property covered by Ext.A1 is Rs.5,20,000/-. Ext.A2 is the sale deed executed in the name of Orma Marbles wherein an extent of 4.86 Ares is purchased at Rs.4,93,827/- per Are. The said property abuts the National Highway and 700 metres away from Athani junction which is having commercial importance. Therefore, the Court below found that Ext.A1 property is more suitable than Ext.A2 for comparison. Court below felt that due to the proximity to the National Highway, the property covered by Ext.A1 is more important and will fetch more value than the acquired property which is situated at a distance of 2 Kms away from the National Highway and that too, in a Panchayat area. It is observed that the property as per Ext.A1 will fetch more value than the acquired property. Therefore, the Court below placed reliance on Ext.A1 and deducted 40% of the value shown in the document in order to L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 7 arrive at the value of land under acquisition. Thereafter, taking into account the difference of time gap between the date of Ext.A1 document and the date of Ext.A1 notification, fixed the land value at Rs.3,25,208/- by giving an enhancement of 18%.
A-2.3. In respect of injurious affection, the balance extent of land available was 4.70 Ares. The Court below observed that no material was available to indicate that after establishment of railway line, there will be diminution in value as far as other property is concerned and therefore, did not grant any compensation towards injurious affection.
A-2.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in other cases, the Court below had placed reliance on Ext.A1 and fixed the land value and there was no reason to fix the land value at a lesser rate in comparison with Ext.A1. The property covered by Ext.A1 is comparable with the land under acquisition. Therefore, appropriate additions ought to have been made to the value as shown in Ext.A1 and fix the land value in the case on hand. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the Court below was justified in making appropriate L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 8 deductions in the land value covered by Ext.A1 as there was no other material to arrive at such a conclusion.
A-2.5. As far as the claim for injurious affection is concerned, the total extent of property owned by the claimant was 5.40 Ares and only 0.70 Ares was acquired. When railway line is being established, the utility of the remaining land will not be lost to any extent. There is no material to grant any enhancement. Under such circumstances, there is no reason to grant any amount towards injurious affection.
A-3.1. L.A.A.No.165/2012 and Cross Objection No.68/2012 arises out of L.A.R.No.119/2009 acquisition is in respect of 0.38 ares. LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,06,821/- and on reference to the Sub Court, the land value was fixed at Rs.3,74,400/-. State has preferred an appeal challenging the enhancement in land value whereas Cross Objection has been filed by the claimant claiming land value at Rs.2,00,000/- per cent.
A-3.2. Before the Court below, the claimant relied upon Exts.A1 to A3, certified copies of sale deed Nos.1448/04, document Nos.5920/1/05 and 162/91. The Court below observed L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 9 that as far as Ext.A1 is concerned, there is no reliable evidence before the Court especially on account of admission of AW1 that the property covered by Ext.A1 is much superior than the acquired land. It is stated that Ext.A1 property is situated in a well known residential area with a ready to occupy house. Even if Ext.A1 is taken into account, deductions are to be made to arrive at the market value of the land under acquisition. Court below, therefore, found that atleast 40% of the value of the property as shown in Ext.A1 has to be deducted in order to arrive at the land value and thereafter, an increase of 20% was given to arrive at the market value and thereafter fixed the land value at Rs.3,74,400/-per Are.
A-3.3. In addition to the said award, the Court below relied upon the evidence of AW3, Expert Engineer and granted enhanced value of structures at Rs.51,352/-. In respect of building value, the Court below relied upon the evidence of AW3, the Expert Engineer and Ext.X1(b) estimate and granted enhanced compensation at Rs.51,352/-. There is no material to take a different view as the State has not adduced any evidence to L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 10 prove the market value of structures and we sustain the said award.
A-3.4. Claimant was also given compensation towards injurious affection at 20% of the remaining property having an extent of 2.70 Ares. Cross Objection has been filed by the claimant claiming compensation for injurious affection at Rs.89,500/- per Are. The total extent of property belonging to the claimant was 4.5 Ares, out of which 1.80 Ares was acquired and the balance extent of land remaining is 2.70 Ares. Acquisition was effected on the western side of the entire property. On account of acquisition, the road on both sides of the property has been divided into two. It was observed that by the existence of the railway line, value of the remaining property will be reduced considerably and accordingly directed payment of 20% towards injurious affection. From the materials placed on record, we do not think it necessary to interfere with the amount of compensation fixed for injurious affection as the said award is reasonable.
A-4.1. L.A.A.No.715/2012 arises out of the judgment in L.A.R L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 11 No.114/2009 by which 8.40 Ares of property was acquired. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,00,076/- per Are and the Sub Court enhanced the land value at Rs.3,16,030/- per Are. The Court also granted injurious affection for the balance extent of 16 Ares at 10% of the land value.
A-4.2. Before the Reference Court, claimant relied upon Exts.A1 to A7 and examined AWs 1 and 2. Respondent relied upon Exts.R1 to R6 and Ext.X1 series were marked as Court exhibits. The property involved was wet land. The Court below observed that Exts.A1, A2 and A4 being title deeds of dry land situated adjacent to the National highway, the same cannot be relied upon to fix the market value of the acquired land. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No.1448/2004 dated 23/03/2004, Ext.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed No.5922/2005 dated 07/11/2005 and Ext.A4 is the certified copy of sale deed No.8359/2007 dated 04/12/2007. Claimants also relied upon Ext.A7 judgment, which is the certified copy of judgment in LAR Nos.146/2009 and 155/2009 of the Sub Court, Paravur with reference to the same notification. Having found that both L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 12 properties are similarly situated, Court below further referred to Ext.A3 certified copy of sale deed No.6165/2005 with reference to wet land. It was observed that the property covered by Ext.A3 is nearer to the property covered by the basic document. The Court below, thereafter, having observed that the value covered by Ext.A7 is more advantageous to the claimant, fixed the land value based on Ext.A7, which is the judgment in LAR No.146/2009. It is further observed that as far as land covered by Ext.A7 is concerned, it has road access; whereas the acquired land does not have road access. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, Court below reduced 15% of the value covered by Ext.A7 and fixed the land value at Rs.3,16,030/- per Are.
A.4.3. In respect of injurious affection, out of the total extent of 24.40 Ares, 8.40 Ares has been acquired. It is observed that, on account of acquisition, balance extent of land is lying on either side of the railway line without any access to each other. In the said circumstances, it is observed that the value of the balance property will be considerably reduced and accordingly fixed 10% of the land value as compensation for injurious affection. Having L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 13 regard to the fact that the property has been divided into two and it does not have access to each other, the Court below was justified in granting 10% of the land value towards injurious affection. We do not think it necessary to interfere with the said award.
A-5.1. L.A.A.No.138/2013 arises from L.A.R.No.72/2009 wherein the land involved was 3.04 Ares. The LAO valued the land at Rs.2,06,821/- per Are which was enhanced by the sub Court at Rs.4,60,200/- per Are. The Court below also granted enhanced compensation towards building value at Rs.1,90,311/-. Before the Court below, the claimant had relied upon Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No.1448/2004 of SRO, Angamaly dated 23/03/2004, Ext.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed No.5922/2005 dated 07/11/2005 and Ext.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed No.8359/2007. Ext.A4 is the certified copy of judgment in LAR No.152/2009. Claimant examined AWs 1 to 3. Respondent produced Exts.R1 to R4, Mahazar, sketch etc. Ext.X1 series were marked as Court exhibits. The Court below found that Ext.A1 can be relied upon to fix the value of land under L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 14 acquisition. However, it was found that the property covered by Ext.A1 was superior to the property under acquisition. Court below therefore found that Ext.A1 can be relied upon after making some deduction. Court below therefore reduced 25% of the value covered by Ext.A1 and arrived at Rs.3,90,000/- per Are and thereafter taking into account the time gap between the date of Ext.A1 document and the date of notification, granted 18% enhancement for the time gap and fixed the land value at Rs.4,60,200/- per Are.
A-5.2. In respect of building value, the Court below relied upon Ext.X1(b) the estimate prepared by AW1 and after making deductions, granted enhanced building value at Rs.1,90,311/-. Prima facie, no error has been committed by the Reference Court in granting enhanced compensation for the building as the only evidence adduced is that of the Expert Engineer and the respondent did not adduce any evidence. Hence, there is no necessity to interfere with the said award.
A-6.1. L.A.A.No.169/2013 arises out of the judgment in L.A.R. No.118/2009. The extent of land involved is 1.71 Ares. The L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 15 LAO granted land value at Rs.2,06,821/- per Are which had been refixed by the Reference Court at Rs.4,05,600/-. The claimant placed reliance upon sale deed No.1448/2004 dated 23/03/2004 (Ext.A1) and examined AW1. Advocate Commissioner was examined as AW2. Respondent relied upon the oral testimony of RW1 and produced Exts.R1 to R9. Ext.C1 was marked a court exhibit. The Court below placing reliance on Ext.A1, observed that Ext.A1 ought to have been considered for fixing the land value. However, it was further observed that as per the Commission Report, property covered by Ext.A1 is near to Angamaly Town. Court below found that there are various similarities with reference to property covered by Ext.A1 and the acquired property. However, sufficient deductions can be made in order to fix the land value for the acquired land and appropriate addition has been made for the time gap between the notification under Section 4(1) and the date of Ext.A1. Accordingly, the Court below added 20% towards the increase on account of time gap between Ext.A1 and the date of notification and deducted 10% on account of its nearness to National Highway and Angamaly town, L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 16 again 5% was deducted since the property covered by Ext.A1 was abutting a Municipal road and again 5% was deducted since the acquired property was by the side of a railway line. Since the property covered by Ext.A1 was having a new building, it has got more advantage and to adjust the value, another 5% was deducted. Further, deduction of 10% was made on account of the property covered by Ext.A1 was being situated in a residential area. Therefore, altogether 35% deduction was made and the land value was fixed at Rs.4,05,600/-.
A-6.2. In respect of additional building value, the Court below observed that no evidence was adduced, however, granted 30% enhancement to the value as fixed by the LAO. This finding, does not seem to be justified. It is for the claimant to prove the market value of the building and structures, in the absence of any such evidence, Court below was not justified in granting a blanket of 30% enhancement without any evidence. In this case, respondent was examined as RW1 and the valuation statement has been produced. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any other material to arrive at a conclusion in regard to the value L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 17 of structures, Court below was not justified in granting the same. Accordingly, we are of the view that the award of Rs.26,712/- as enhanced building value is not sustainable and is to be set aside.
A-7.1. L.A.A.No.198/2013 and L.A.A.No. 208/2012 arise out of the judgment in L.A.R No.120/2009. L.A.A.No.198/2013 is filed by the State and L.A.A.No.208/2012 is filed by the claimant. The land involved in the acquisition is 3.80 Ares. LAO valued the land at Rs.1,96,480/- per Are and the Sub Court enhanced the land value and refixed the same at Rs.3,06,800/- per Are. L.A.A.No.208/2012 is the appeal filed by the claimant. The claimants examined three witnesses as AWs 1 to 3 and relied upon Ext.A1. Ext.C1 series are Commission Report and sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. This case was decided along with the batch of cases in L.A.R.Nos.135, 145 and 149 of 2009. Reference Court, while fixing the land value, placed reliance upon Ext.A1 and made certain deductions and additions on account of the dissimilarities in the land under acquisition and the relied upon judgment. After deducting 50% of the land value with reference to Ext.A1, Court below enhanced 18% towards the L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 18 time gap between the date of Ext.A1 and Sec.4(1) notification and accordingly fixed the land value.
A-7.2. The total extent of land owned by the claimants is 4.05 Ares, out of which 3.80 Ares was acquired and the balance extent of land was only 0.25 Ares. Court below found that the said land had become virtually useless and therefore directed payment of 90% of the market value. We do not find any error in the said reasoning warranting interference.
A-7.3. In the appeal filed by the claimants, they sought for enhancement in land value at Rs.2,05,368/- per Are, in addition to what has been already awarded. It is contended that in L.A.R.No.75/2010, for wet land, the Sub Court had fixed Rs.3,16,030/- per Are and therefore the claimants are entitled for much higher land value.
A-8.1. L.A.A.No.220/2013 arises out of the judgment in L.A.R.No.73/2009. The land involved in the acquisition is 0.90 Ares and the land value awarded was Rs.2,06,821/- per Are and on reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Sub court refixed land value at Rs.4,48,500/-. Before the Reference Court, the L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 19 claimant relied upon Exts.A1 to A8 and examined AW1 to AW3. Respondent produced Exts.R1 to R8 and Ext.C1 series were marked as Court exhibits. While considering the land value, the Court below had relied upon Ext.A1 sale deed no.1448/2004 of SRO Angamaly dated 23/03/2004 and after making certain additions and deductions, fixed the land value at Rs.4,48,500/- per Are.
A-8.2. Reference Court further granted an amount of Rs.23,336/- as value of structures and 30% of the market value towards injurious affection for the balance extent of 2.75 ares. It was observed that the total extent of land was 3.65 Ares and the acquisition was for 0.90 Ares. The acquisition was effected along the eastern part of the property which is behind his building. According to him, the road access to the eastern side was lost. That apart, his property is situated like an island in between the western existing railway line and the eastern newly formed railway line. Apparently, the present nature of land would injuriously affect the balance property. The Court below directed payment of 30% of the market value of the land for injurious L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 20 affection, which we do not think warrants interference.
A-9.1. L.A.A.No.227/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.76/2010. Three items of property having an extent of 5.26 Ares, 1.83 Ares and 4.10 Ares were acquired. LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,15,087/- per Are, Rs.1,46,219/- and Rs.1,15,087/- respectively. Before the Court below, the claimant placed reliance on Ext.A1, the judgment in L.A.R.No.75/2010. The Court below found that the property covered by Ext.A1 sale deed situated very near to the property under acquisition and the property covered by Ext.A1 has no road frontage or road access. The value of the property covered by Ext.A1 as fixed by the LAO was 1,00,076/- whereas a higher land value was given in the present case. It was observed that since a 215.79% enhancement has been given for the land involved in the earlier case, a similar enhancement has to be given for the land involved in the present case also and accordingly, refixed the land value at Rs.2,48,346/- per Are for two items of land and Rs.3,15,526/- per Are for the remaining land.
A-10.1 L.A.A.No.254/2013 and Cross Objection L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 21 No.20/2015 arise from LAR No.116/2009 wherein the land involved is 1.80 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,86,656/- per Are. The Sub Court refixed the land value at Rs.3,09,859/- per Are. The Reference Court also granted Rs.1,93,752/- as compensation for injurious affection. The Court below relied upon Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 to A3 are the certified copies of sale deed Nos.1448/04 of SRO Angamaly, 5922/05 of SRO, Chengamanad and 717/87. Ext.A4 is the document No.2926/97, Ext.A5 is the certified copy of Doc.No.8359/07 and Ext.A6 is the certified copy of judgment in LAR 152/09. Exts.R1 to R8 sketch, mahazar, award etc. were marked on the side of the respondent. Exts.X1 to X3 commission report, valuation report, location sketch etc. were marked as Court's exhibits. Aws 1 to 3 were examined by the claimant. No witness was examined by the respondent.
A-10.2 The Court below had also granted enhanced compensation for the value of structures and compensation for injurious affection for the remaining property of 2.70 Ares. While granting enhanced compensation for the structures, the Court L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 22 below relied upon the evidence of AW3, the Expert Engineer. He assessed the value of building at Rs.2,22,510/- after deducting depreciation for two years. The Court had granted enhanced compensation at Rs.51,352/-. Having regard to the fact that the compensation has been awarded based on sufficient materials, there is no reason to interfere with the said award.
A-10.3 The claimant was in possession of 4.5 Ares of land out of which 1.80 Ares was acquired and the remaining property is 2.70 Ares. Court below observed that since the land is by the side of a railway line, it will be difficult for the claimant to put up any construction or to have any business in the property and therefore directed payment of 20% for the market value of the land as compensation for injurious affection.
A-10.4 Cross Objection has been filed by the claimant claiming enhanced land value at Rs.4,10,703/- per Are and also enhancement towards injurious affection. As far as the claim for injurious affection is concerned, the Court below had correctly appreciated the factual circumstances and had granted sufficient compensation for the injurious affection for the balance property L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 23 and there is no reason to interfere with the said award.
A-10.5 As far as land value is concerned, Court below placed reliance upon Ext.A1, Document No.1448/04 of SRO Angamaly, deducted 40% on account of the relative importance of the document cited with reference to the claim sought for and thereafter give an increase by 15% and fixed the land value at Rs.3,58,000/- per Are.
A-11.1. LA.A.No.296/2013 arises from LAR No.79/2009 wherein the land involved is 0.03 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,06,821/- per Are. The Sub Court refixed the land value at Rs.4,48,500/- per Are. Court below relied upon Ext.A1, certified copy of sale deed No.1448/2004 of SRO Angamaly, dated 23/03/2004. To the value in the said document, further enhancement of 15% for the first one year and further 15% for the second year was granted to fix the land value.
A.11.2. Further, in respect of the balance extent of land, an amount equivalent to 5% of the market value was awarded as compensation of the injurious affection. In regard to injurious affection, apparently only a small extent of land is acquired from L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 24 the total extent of 4.50 Ares. This will not cause any substantial injurious affection as held by the Court below. Even as per the Court below, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim. However, it was held that on account of acquisition of land for railway line, the utility of the remaining land is lost. Under such circumstances, we do not think that the Court below has committed any error in granting any compensation towards injurious affection.
A-12.1. L.A.A.No.323/2013 arises from L.A.R.No.147/2009. The extent of land acquired is 8.03 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,96,480/- per Are. On a reference to the Sub Court, the land value has been refixed at Rs.4,18,600/- per Are. Court below also granted compensation for injurious affection at 5% of the market value in respect of 13.86 cents and 30% of the market value in respect of 5.59 Ares. The Court below had also granted enhanced compensation for the building. While arriving at the enhanced value for the building, the Court below relied upon the evidence of AW2. It was observed that the amount arrived at by AW2 was not challenged with any data or materials and therefore L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 25 the the said amount can be accepted after making the depreciation of for the last 5 years and accordingly the value of the building was fixed at Rs.5,08,035/-.
A-12.2. As rightly pointed out by the Court below, no evidence was adduced by the appellant to prove the market value of the building and the Court below was justified in relying upon the evidence of the Expert Engineer in order to arrive at the building value and there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Court below.
A-12.3. In regard to the claim for injurious affection also, the Court below found that, on account of acquisition, the property was divided into two. It is observed that when the acquired property was filled up for the purpose of railway line the entry to the eastern plot was blocked. Court below found that the total extent of land belonging to the claimant was 18.80 Ares, out of which 8.03 Ares is acquired. The remaining extent is 10.77 Ares. The acquisition for the railway line through the middle of the property and the balance property lies on either side of the newly formed railway line. On the western side, 5.59 Ares remains and L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 26 on the eastern side 5.18 Ares remains. Taking into account the fact that there is a complete blockage to the entry to the eastern plot, the Court below was justified in granting compensation for injurious affection of 30% of the market value. As far as the other extent of land is concerned, that is 5.59 ares, only 5% is granted as compensation for injurious affection. Existence of railway line will definitely cause some injury to the balance land. Hence the finding of the Court below that 5% of the market value has to be given for enhanced compensation for 5.59 Ares of land is sustainable.
A-13.1. L.A.A.No.502/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.152/2009. Cross Objection No.216/2014 has been filed claiming enhanced compensation. The extent of land involved is 13.25 Ares. LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,96,480/- per Are which was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.4,36,800/- per Are. In respect of injurious affection, Court below granted 30% of land value for 1.87 Ares and 15% per Are for 5.76Ares.
A-13.2. Before the Court below, the claimant relied upon Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 27 No.1448/2004 of SRO, Angamaly. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed No.5922/2005 and Ext.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed No.2440/1984. Ext.A4 is the true copy of the sketch. Two witnesses were examined as AW1 and AW2. Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1. Respondent relied upon Exts.R1 to R5. Ext.C1 series were marked as Court exhibits. Court below observed that Ext.A2 cannot be the basis for fixation of land value. However, Ext.A1 can be relied upon after making sufficient deductions and additions. Accordingly, Court below fixed the land value after deducting 30% of the value as shown in Ext.A1 and thereafter adding 20% and fixed at Rs.4,36,800/-.
A-13.3. In respect of injurious affection, it was observed that, on account of acquisition, the property of the claimant was divided into two and after acquisition 5.76 Ares of land was remained on the western side and 1.57 Ares on the east. Ext.A3 is the document under which the claimant was holding the property and from the mahazar, the Court below found that out of an extent of 20.24 Ares, 13.25 Ares had been acquired. The Advocate Commissioner has also reported that on account of L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 28 acquisition, the property has been divided into two, which aspect has not been disputed. It is therefore found that, on account of acquisition, the property on the eastern side has become shapeless and has no utility. It was found that on account of acquisition, the balance land would be materially affected and therefore 30% of the land value was fixed as compensation in respect of 1.87 Ares as injurious affection and 15% for 15.76 Ares. Having regard to the fact that the property had been divided into two and its utility has been substantially decreased, we do not find any error in the judgment of the Court below in awarding compensation towards injurious affection.
A-13.4 In the cross objection, the respondent claims land value at Rs.4,47,000/- per Are and injurious affection for 7.63 Ares. In fact, for injurious affection, the Court below found that the entire property of the claimant was divided into two on account of acquisition and 7.63 Ares are remaining in possession of the claimant after acquisition, out of which 5.76 Ares is on the western side and 1.87 Ares on the eastern side. The aforesaid fact is proved by the commissioner's plan and report as well. L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 29 Hence it was held that 30% of the value can be granted for 1.87 Ares and 15% for 5.76 Ares. Having regard to the fact that the Court below had properly appreciated the materials placed on record, we do not think that a different view can be taken either to reduce the compensation awarded by the Court below or enhance the same as claimed in the cross objection. To that extent, the award stands confirmed.
A.14.1. L.A.A.No.510/2013 arises from L.A.R.No.62/2011 wherein the extent of land involved is 5.70 Ares. LAO had given land value at Rs.1,96,480/- per Are and on reference, the sub Court enhanced the land value at Rs.4,36,800/-per Are. While fixing the land value, the Court below did not rely upon any of the title deeds Exts.A1 to A3 produced in the case, as the properties covered by the said documents were found to be not comparable with the land under acquisition. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No.1448/2004 dated 23/03/2004, Ext.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed No.5922/2005 dated 07/11/2005 and Ext.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed No.8359/2007 dated 04/12/2007. However, the Court below placed reliance upon the judgment in L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 30 L.A.R.No.152/2009 dated 10/08/2011, marked as Ext.A8 and refixed the land value.
A-14.2. In addition to the above compensation, the Court below also granted enhanced value for structures. The structure in the property was a well. LAO awarded 14,041/-. AW2 had valued the well, based on Ext.X1(c) valuation report. According to her, after deducing depreciation, the cost of well would come to Rs.42,044/-. The Court below, however, having observed that AW2 ought to have taken the value of the materials as well as labour charges as on the date of notification, refixed the value of structures at Rs.26,898/-. There is no reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding with reference to value of structures, in so far as there is no other evidence adduced by the respondent to substantiate the value of structures.
A.14.3. In addition to the aforesaid compensation, 100% of the land value was given towards injurious affection for 0.23 Ares on the north eastern side of the acquired portion and 5% of the market value for 10 Ares for the balance land situated on the western plot. It is found that the acquisition was along the north L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 31 eastern corner of the entire extent of 41.20 Ares. On account of acquisition, 0.23 Ares was left out on the north eastern corner and 37.27 Ares on the western side. In respect of 0.23 Ares, the Court below observed that there cannot be any utility for the said land and therefore granted 100% land value as compensation for injurious affection. This finding cannot be disturbed as the extent is very small and the land cannot be utilized for any useful purpose. In respect of 37.27 Ares, the Court below found that it cannot be stated that the entire land will be adversely affected whereas at best one fourth extent of land could be adversely affected and accordingly granted payment of 5% of land value for 10 Ares. Taking into account the overall factual situation and the materials adduced, we do not think that there is any justification to interfere with the said finding of the Court below.
A.15.1. L.A.A.No.537/2013 arises out of L.A.R.No.117/2009 of Sub Court, North Paravur. The extent of land acquired is 2.10 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,06,821/- per Are, which was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.4,48,500/- per Are. In respect of the balance extent of land, 20% of the land L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 32 value was awarded towards injurious affection. By fixing the land value, the Court below placed reliance upon Ext.A1. Finding that the land covered by Ext.A1 document is superior to the land under acquisition, Court below reduced 25% of the land value and arrived at Rs.3,90,000/- per Are. Thereafter, increased the land value by 15% and accordingly, fixed the land value at Rs.4,48,500/- per Are. Ext.A1 is sale deed No.1448/2004 dated 23/3/2004.
A-15.2. The total extent of property of the claimant was 3.64 Ares of which 2.10 Ares has been acquired. It is observed that the property situated like an island in between the existing railway line and the newly formed railway line on the eastern side. It is observed that the balance property of the claimant will be adversely affected and accordingly directed payment of 20% for the balance extent of 1.59 Ares. Having considered the factual aspects and the finding of the Court below, we do not think that any error has been committed by the Court below in granting compensation for injurious affection.
A-16.1. L.A.A.No.542/2013 and Cross Objection No.217/2014 L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 33 arise from the judgment in L.A.R.No.31/2011. 7.02 Ares of land belong to the claimants was acquired. The LAO awarded land value at Rs.1,96,480/- per are. The Reference Court refixed the land value at Rs.4,36,800/- per Are, placing reliance upon an earlier judgment in L.A.R.No.150/2009 dated 10/08/2011. In regard to enhanced compensation for building and structures the Court granted a further amount of Rs.7,11,122/- based on a valuation report of an Expert Engineer, AW2, which was marked as Ext.X1 series. The Court below also granted compensation for injurious affection. It was observed that the claimants together had 24.80 Ares of land, out of which 7.02 ares was acquired and the balance would come to 17.48 Ares. Since the acquisition was along the middle of the property, the Court below based on Ext.X1
(a) plan and the Commissioner's report observed that though there is no hindrance for access to the southern plot having 5.70 Ares. But, since the remaining 12.08 Ares lies on the north of the newly formed railway line, the access to that plot is completely blocked. Therefore, the Court found that claimants sustained loss of 50% of the utility in respect of the said plot and accordingly L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 34 directed compensation to be granted at Rs.2,18,400/- for 12.08 Ares. In respect of 5.70 Ares, the Court felt that the diminution in land value would only be 10% of the market value and accordingly directed payment of 10% of the land value for 5.70 Ares of land.
A-16.2. Cross objection had been filed by the claimant seeking enhanced land value as well as enhanced compensation for injurious affection.
A-16.3. In regard to enhanced value of structures, which is the subject matter in the appeal filed by the State, the Court below had relied upon the report of AW2. An Advocate Commissioner has been appointed to assist the Assistant Engineer as AW2 and Ext.X1(b) is the valuation report. The report would show that the value of the building had been assessed at Rs.10,94,907/-. Apparently no evidence was adduced by the respondent to prove that the value assessed by the LAO. The Court below accepted the report of AW2. Under such circumstances, we do not think it necessary for us to interfere with the amount of compensation granted as far as the building L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 35 value is concerned.
A-16.4. In regard to compensation for injurious affection, the report of the Advocate Commissioner would clearly show that 12.08 Ares of land does not have any road access and the utility of the said land has been reduced to such an extent. The acquisition goes through the middle of the property held by the claimants. The Court below observed that 50% of the value of the land for 12.08 Ares which has lost road access would be a reasonable compensation. In respect of 5.70 Ares, it has road access and it is found that the said land can be profitably used by the claimants either for effecting cultivation or for making some construction in the property. Court below granted 10% of the value as compensation on the finding that a railway line separates the two properties. The claim for injurious affection would arise only if the land cannot be used for any other purpose or for the purpose for which it has been utilized. We don't find any infirmity in the finding of the court below, which requires any reduction or enhancement.
A-17.1. L.A.A.No.55/2014 arises from L.A.R.No.18/2011. L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 36 The land acquired is 0.08 Ares. LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,06,827/- per Are. Sub Court refixed the land value at Rs.5,06,220/- per Are. Though reference was made by the claimants to Exts.A1 to A3 documents, which are certified copies of sale deed Nos. 1448/2004 dated 23/03/2004, 5922/2005 dated 07/11/2005 and 8359/2007 dated 04/12/2007, it was observed that the property of the claimants is at a distance of 400 metres from the National Highway and therefore, land covered by the said documents are not comparable with the land under acquisition. Therefore, the Court below placed reliance on Ext.A4, certified copy of the judgment in LAR No.72/09 and fixed the land value at Rs.4,60,200/-. It is also observed that the property covered by Ext.A4 is situated at 150 metres away from the existing railway line whereas the property of the claimants is adjacent to the railway line. Court below further observed that since there is no existing railway line adjacent to the property in L.A.R.No.18/2011, the property has some superiority over the property covered by A4. Therefore, a further enhancement of 10% over and above the land value of the property covered by L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 37 L.A.R.No.17/2011 was given and fixed the land value at Rs.5,06,220/- per Are.
A-17.2. It is further found that the total extent of land held by the claimants in L.A.R.No.18/2011 was 2.15 Ares and only 0.08 Ares was acquired and the balance extent is 2.07 Ares. It was observed that, by the acquisition, remaining property of the claimant is injuriously affected and since the proposed railway line passes adjacent to the property and it will cause diminishing land value and accordingly directed payment of 30% of the market value as compensation for injurious affection. In respect of injurious affection, it is rather clear that only a small extent of land has been acquired from the claimants. The finding of the Court below is that passing of the train adjacent to the house will cause damage to the residential building and will amount to a threat to the life to existence there in future and also diminishes the land value. The claimants are residing in a building situated in the very same property and only a very small extent of land is acquired and as far as claimants are concerned, though there is no change in utility of the building, it may reduce the value of the L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 38 building. Under such circumstances, we do not think that the Court below had committed any error in directing compensation towards injurious affection.
PART B-Angamaly Village B-1.1. L.A.A.Nos.245/2012 and 190/2013 arise from L.A.R.No.103/2009. L.A.A.No.245/2012 is filed by the claimant and L.A.A.No.190/2013 is filed by the State. The extent of land acquired is 0.92 Ares. The LAO valued the land at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are and the Sub Court enhanced the land value at Rs.3,68,160/- per Are. The Court below also granted compensation for injurious affection at 50% of the market value for the balance extent of 1.91 Ares. The total extent of property which belonged to the claimant was 2.83 Ares, out of which 0.92 Ares was acquired. The Court below found that on acquisition of the property the road access to the remaining land has been lost.
B-1.2 Before the Reference Court, claimant relied upon Ext.A1, sale deed No.1772/89 of SRO, Angamaly and Ext.A2, certified copy of judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009 of the same L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 39 Court. AWs 1 and 2 were examined as witness on behalf of the claimant and Ext.X1 series were marked, the commission report and sketch.
B-1.3 Court below did not find it proper to place reliance upon Exts.A1 and A2. In Ext.A2, which is the common judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009 and connected cases, the Court below had relied upon sale deed No.1448/2004 of SRO Angamaly. The certified copy of the said document is seen marked in evidence as Ext.A3. It is observed that Ext.A3 can be relied upon to fix the market value after necessary deduction and accordingly reduced the land value as shown in Ext.A3 and thereafter gave an enhancement of 18% to arrive at the market value at Rs.3,68,160/- per Are.
B-1.4 In L.A.A.No.245/2012, appellant claims land value at Rs.4 lakhs per Are and claims the same amount towards injurious affection for 1.91 Ares.
B-1.5 As far as injurious affection is concerned, the Court below had already granted 50% of the market value for the balance extent of 1.91 Ares. It is clearly observed that the road L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 40 frontage as well as the road access has been lost. After acquisition, the utility of the land had been lost to a considerable extent. However, it is observed that the property could be utilised for some purpose. But the utility has been considerably reduced, for which the Court had directed payment of 50% of the market value. We do not find any reason to grant any enhancement in that regard.
B-2.1. L.A.A.No.740/2012 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No. 107/2009 wherein the land involved is 6.67 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,32,926/- per Are. The Sub Court refixed the land value at Rs.4,99,200/- per Are. The Reference Court also awarded 40% of the land value in respect of 1.20 Ares towards compensation for injurious affection.
B-2.2. The claimant relied upon document No.1448/2004 dated 23/10/2004 which was marked as Ext.A1. The claimant was examined as AW1. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1. Respondent placed reliance upon Exts.R1 to R8 documents. In regard to land value, the Court below, placing reliance on Ext.A1, deducted 20% from the value shown in the document. L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 41 Taking into account the importance of the property covered by Ext.A1 and thereafter gave an increase of 20% for the time gap between the date of notification and the date of Ext.A1 and accordingly refixed the land value at Rs.4,99,200/-.
B-2.3. The total extent of property owned by the claimant was 19.718 cents. The Commissioner, who had been examined in the case reported that the remaining unacquired land on the western end is having only 3 metres width and eastern end having only 1= metres width and the length of the property is 25 meters. The Court observed that the property is not suitable for any other purpose but the utility has not been entirely cut off. The property can be utilised for cultivation purpose. In the said circumstances, the Court had directed payment of 40% of the land value towards injurious affection in respect of 1.20 Ares. Taking into account the factual aspects involved in the matter and perusing the materials placed on record the Court had arrived at the aforesaid finding. Under such circumstances, we do not think it necessary for us to interfere with the said finding of fact and the compensation fixed for injurious affection. L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 42 B-3.1. L.A.A.No.159/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.100/2009. The extent of land acquired is 1.16 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,96,480/- per Are which was enhanced by the Reference Court at Rs.4,33,200/- per Are. Court below had also granted compensation for injurious affection in respect of 1.11 Ares at 30% of the market value.
B-3.2. Before the Reference Court, claimant relied upon Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of Document No.1448/2004 of SRO, Angamaly. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009 dated 27/01/2011 of the Sub court, Paravur. Ext.X1 is the commission report and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as AWs 1 and 2. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. Court relied upon Ext.A2, the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009 and taking into account the dissimilarity, 95% of the value of the property in Ext.A2 was taken note of and fixed the land value at Rs.4,33,200/- per Are.
B-3.3. With reference to injurious affection, it was noticed that the total extent of property of the claimant was 2.27 Ares L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 43 and after acquisition, the balance extent is only 1.11 Ares. That apart, on account of acquisition, access to the said property had been lost and entry to the plot is blocked. Since no construction could be made, Court felt that it would be appropriate to grant 30% of the market value as compensation for injurious affection. Though the property of the petitioner itself was only a small extent, taking into account the fact that access to the property has been lost, Court below was justified in granting 30% of the land value towards compensation for injurious affection.
B-4.1. L.A.A.No.168/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.131/2009. The extent of land acquired is 3.03 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,96,480/- per Are. Reference Court enhanced the land value under Section 18 of the LA Act at Rs.4,33,200/- per Are. Court below also granted 10% of the market value for the balance extent of 3.03 Ares as compensation for injurious affection.
B-4.2. Before the Court below, claimants placed reliance upon Ext.A1, the certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009 dated 27/01/2011 of the Sub court, Paravur. L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 44 Ext.X1 is the commission report and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as AWs 1 and 2. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. While fixing the land value, the Court had placed reliance upon Ext.A1 and taking into consideration the relative importance, 95% of the land value covered by Ext.A1 was fixed as land value in the present case and accordingly, the land value was fixed at Rs.4,33,200/- per Are.
B-4.3. As far as injurious affection is concerned, the claimants were in possession of 12 Ares of property and after acquisition, the balance extent of property is 8.87 Ares. When the Advocate Commissioner visited the property, the claimants had informed her that the remaining property is only 7.5 cents. It is observed that the acquisition was along the northern side of the entire property and the balance property lies on the southern side. Court below observed that on account of the acquisition, the right of way has not been lost in respect of the balance property. However, it is observed that since the value of the property by the side of the railway line will be reduced considerably, the Court below thought it fit to grant 10% of the market value for 3.13 Ares L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 45 towards compensation for injurious affection. Taking into account the factual aspects considered by the Court below in granting compensation for injurious affection, we do not think that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and we do not intend to set aside the award granted towards compensation for injurious affection.
B-5.1. LAA No.177/2013 arises from L.A.R.No.72/2010. The extent of land involved is 1.42 Ares. LAO valued the property at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are which was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.4,60,200/- per Are. In respect of the remaining extent of 4.14 Ares, the Court below granted compensation for injurious affection at 30% of the land value. The claimant relied upon oral testimony of AWs 1 and 2 and produced Exts.A1 to A3. Respondent relied upon Exts.R1 to R4 and Ext.X1 is the commission report which has been marked. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of document No.1448/2004 dated 23/07/2004 of SRO, Angamaly. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.107/09. Ext.A3 is the document No.3909/03 dated 15/10/2003. The Reference Court found that Ext.A2 cannot be the L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 46 basis to assess the market value of the acquired property and Ext.A1 can be relied upon after giving necessary deductions and additions. Accordingly, 25% of the market value was deducted and for the escalation in price of the property, enhancement of 18% was granted and the land value was refixed at Rs.4,60,200/- per Are.
B-5.2. In respect of injurious affection, the claimant was in possession of 5.79 Ares out of which 1.65 Ares was acquired. It was observed that on account of acquisition, road frontage and road access to the remaining plot has been lost. The property does not have any access to the Municipal road for which the claimant has to cross the railway line which is yet to be formed. Under such circumstances, the Court below found that in respect of the balance extent of land, 30% of the market value has to be given towards injurious affection. We do not find any error on the part of the Reference Court in granting any enhancement for injurious affection.
B-6.1. L.A.A.No.194/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R. No.106/2009. The extent of property acquired is 1.74 Ares. The L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 47 LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at Rs.4,56,000/- per Are. Claimants relied upon Ext.A1, the certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009 dated 27/01/2011 of the Sub court, N.Paravur. Ext.X1 is the commission report and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as AWs 1 and 2. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. While fixing the land value, the Court below relied upon Ext.A1 and fixed the same rate on a finding that same value can be granted in the matter.
B-7.1. L.A.A.No.196/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.101/2009. The extent of property involved is 9.43 Ares. LAO granted land value at Rs.1,26,596/- per Are and the Sub Court enhanced the land value at Rs.4,96,400/- per Are. Sub Court also granted 30% of the land value for the balance extent of 1.97 Ares. Before the Reference Court, claimant relied upon the judgment in L.A.R.No. 118/2009 and AWs 1 and 2 were examined. Commission report was marked as Ext.X1. Court below, relied upon Ext.A1 and fixed the land value at 65% of the market value given to the property covered by Ext.A1.
L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 48 B-7.2. In respect of injurious affection, it was observed that the claimant possessed 11.40 Ares and after acquisition he was in possession of only 1.97 Ares. In so far as the said property, the utility of which has been lost to a certain extent, the Court below granted 30% of the market value for injurious affection. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment.
B-8.1. L.A.A.No.203/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No. 71/2010. The extent of land acquired is 11.98 Ares. LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are which was enhanced by the Reference Court at Rs.4,71,900/- per Are. Court below also granted compensation for injurious affection at 10% for the balance extent of 4.22 Ares. Before the Reference Court, claimant relied upon Exts.A1 to A3. The respondents relied upon Exts.R1 to R4. Claimant was examined as AW1. Commission report and sketch were marked as Ext.X1. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of the sale deed No.1448/2004 dated 23/03/2004 and Ext.A2 is the certified copy of the judgment in LAR No.133/09 dated 17/03/2011 and Ext.A3 is the area register copy with sketch prepared by the LAO. In regard to land value, the Court relied L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 49 upon Ext.A1 and made a deduction of 25%. Taking into consideration its advantages and thereafter gave an increase by 18%, thereby fixing the land value at Rs.4,71,900/- per Are.
B-8.2. In regard to injurious affection, it is observed that on account of acquisition, the property has been divided into two. The plot on the southern side has road frontage and the extent of land is more than 3 Acres. As far as the northern plot is concerned, it is about 10 cents and proceeding on the basis that the said property may suffer some injurious affection, 10% of the market value was awarded for 4.22 Ares. In so far as the property has been divided into two, definitely the smaller extent of land having 4.22 Ares may not fetch the very same value and therefore we do not find any error on the part of the Court below in granting 10% of the market value towards injurious affection.
B-9.1 L.A.A.No.204/2013 and Cross Objection No.63/2015 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No. No.71/2009. The extent of property acquired is 6.23 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,29,164/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at Rs.4,90,880/- per Are. Claimants relied upon Exts.A1 to L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 50 A6. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009 dated 27/01/2011 of the Sub court, Paravur. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of Document No.1448/2004 of SRO, Angamaly. Ext.A3 is the certified copy of Document No.1555/2004 of SRO, Angamaly. Ext.A4 is the certified copy of Document No.1717/2004 of SRO, Angamaly. Ext.A5 is the certified copy of Document No.1738/2004 of SRO, Angamaly. Ext.A6 is the power of attorney dated 23/06/2008. Ext.X1 series are commission report and sketch. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as AWs 1 and 2. Respondents did not adduce any evidence.
B-9.2. Court below after considering Exts.A1 and A2, it was observed that the property covered by Ext.A2 abuts a Municipal road and taking into consideration the difference and importance of the land covered by Ext.A2 compared to the acquired land, deducted 20% of the value of the property covered by Ext.A2 and thereafter granted an addition of 18%, thereby fixed the land value at Rs.4,90,880/- per Are.
B-9.3. The claimant has filed Cross Objection, wherein the L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 51 claim for land value is made at Rs.5,78,627/- per Are. It is contended that 90% of the market value of the property covered by Ext.A2 ought to have been taken as criteria in determining the market value of the property under acquisition.
B-10.1. L.A.A.No.217/2013 is an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment in L.A.R No.102/2009. The land involved is to the extent of 4.27 Ares. The LAO valued the land at Rs.1,96,480/- per Are and the Sub Court refixed the land value at Rs.4,33,200/- per Are. The Court below also granted 10% of the land value for 7.19 Ares, which is the balance land after acquisition, towards injurious affection.
B-10.2. In order to arrive at the land value, claimant placed reliance upon the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009. Claimant also examined AW1 and AW2 and Ext.X1, the Commission report. The Court below, having found that Ext.A1 can be relied upon, a comparative analysis was made and observed that 95% of the value given to the property in Ext.X1 can be fixed as market value of the acquired land and accordingly fixed the land value at Rs.4,33,200/- per Are.
L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 52 B-10.3. In regard to injurious affection, it was observed that the total extent of land belonging to the claimant was 11.46 Ares and after acquisition, the balance extent of land left out was 7.19 Ares. It is found that on account of acquisition, access to the mud road was not blocked as far as the balance property is concerned. However, it was observed that being a dry land and the railway line is abutting, the property will be adversely affected. Court below observed that 10% of the market value can be given as compensation for the remaining extent. We do not think that the amount awarded for injurious affection is, in any way excess on account of the difficulties that the property of the claimant may suffer on account of acquisition of the property. Therefore, we do not want to disturb the award of 10% value as as far as injurious affection is concerned.
B-11.1 L.A.A.No.273/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No. 68/2010. The extent of land acquired is 0.71 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at Rs.4,56,000/- per Are. Before the Court below, claimants placed reliance upon Ext.A1, the L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 53 certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009 dated 27/01/2011 of the Sub court, Paravur. Ext.X1 is the commission report and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as AWs 1 and 2. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. While fixing the land value, the Court placed reliance upon the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009. Same value of land covered by Ext.A1 was fixed as value of land under acquisition.
B-11.2. Court below also granted compensation for injurious affection in respect of 1 Are of property by giving 100% of the land value. It was observed that the total extent of property in possession of the claimant was 21 cents, out of which 0.71 Ares was acquired, that is 1.75 cents. As per the sketch prepared along with the mahazar, the acquisition is effected from the south western corner of the entire extent. The Court below, therefore, found that the road access near the northern side is not lost and the remaining property comes to 20 cents. It is found that there is no other disadvantage as the property lies as a single block and can be utilised for construction purpose. As it is observed that the presence of the railway line may diminish the value, the Court L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 54 below directed payment of market value for 1 Are as compensation for injurious affection.
B-11.3. This is an instance where the claimant could not prove any injurious affection. Only a small extent of land from the total holding had been acquired. Under such circumstances, the grant of compensation towards injurious affection was totally misconceived. We do not think that there is any justifiable reason for the Court below in granting compensation for injurious affection when the property has not at all lost any utility. The finding of the Court below that railway line adjacent to the property would affect the property adversely does not seem to be justifiable. In so far as the property of the claimants is concerned, unless there is proof to show that it was affected adversely in some manner, Court below was not justified in granting compensation for injurious affection and to that extent, we are of the view that the Court below should not have granted enhanced value for injurious affection. To that extent, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
B-12.1. L.A.A.No.494/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 55 L.A.R.No. 15/2011. The extent of land acquired is 1.16 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,86,656/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at Rs.3,98,840/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, claimants relied upon Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of Document No.1448/2004 of SRO, Angamaly dated 23/03/2004. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of judgment in L.A.R.No.129/09 of Sub Court, N.Paravur dated 17/02/2012. Ext.A3 is the notarised copy of Deed No.1297/2003 of SRO, Angamaly. Ext.X1 is the commission report and sketch. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as AWs 1 and 2. Respondents placed reliance upon Exts.R1 to R4, mahazar, sketch etc. B-12.2. Land value was fixed by the Court below based on Ext.A2 the certified copy of judgment in L.A.R.No.129/09 wherein the Court had fixed the land value at Rs.3,98,840/- per Are. AW2 is the Advocate Commissioner who reported that the property lies immediate east of the claimant's land. Hence it was found that the property covered by Ext.A2 is similarly situated to that of the property under acquisition and accordingly fixed the land value at L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 56 Rs.3,98,840/- per Are. With reference to compensation for injurious affection, it was found by the Reference Court that the total extent of land of the claimants was 3.24 Ares and after acquisition, the balance property is 2.08 Ares. Road access to the remaining portion has not been lost and therefore the property of the claimants is not adversely affected. However, observing that the utility of the land might be reduced on account of nearness to the railway line, 10% of the market value was awarded as compensation for injurious affection. Taking into consideration the small extent of land available after acquisition, we do not think that the award of 10% of the market value towards compensation for injurious affection for the remaining extent of land is unjustifiable in any manner.
B-13.1. L.A.A.No.523/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No. 66/2010. The extent of land acquired is 1.15 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at Rs.4,68,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, claimants relied upon Ext.A1, the certified copy of Document No.1448/2004 of SRO, Angamaly dated L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 57 23/03/2004. Ext.X1 is the commission report and sketch. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as AWs 1 and 2. Respondents placed reliance upon Exts.R1 to R4, mahazar, sketch etc. B-13.2. While fixing the land value, the Court below had relied upon Ext.A1 document No.1448/2004 and thereafter reduced 25% from its value, taking into account the difference in the nature of land and thereafter increased it by 20%, thereby fixing the land value at Rs.4,68,000/- per Are.
B-13.3. As far as injurious affection is concerned, the total extent of property owned by the claimant was 4 Ares. The Court below found that on account of acquisition, though the road access to the northern extremity has been lost, the remaining extent has frontage of the eastern municipal road. The property also has been bifurcated. However, on account of railway line passing near the property, there is diminution in the value of the land and accordingly, 15% of the value for 2.85 Ares is granted as compensation for injurious affection. Having regard to the fact that the compensation for injurious affection has been made L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 58 taking into account the relative importance of the land on account of acquisition, we do not think that the compensation is unreasonable. Therefore, we do not intend to interfere with the said portion of the judgment.
B-14.1. L.A.A.No.586/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.70/2010. The extent of land acquired is 2.88 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are. Reference Court enhanced the land value at 4,71,900/- per Are. Claimants relied upon Ext.A1, the certified copy of judgment in L.A.R No.71/2010 of Additional Sub Court, N.Paravur dated 24/03/2012. Ext.X1 series are the Commission report and expert Engineer's report. One witness was examined on behalf of the claimants as AW1. Respondents placed reliance upon Exts.R1 to R4. But, no witness was examined on behalf the respondents.
B-14.2 The Court below also granted enhanced compensation for value of structures. An expert engineer was deputed to assess the value of building. According to him, the value of building would come to Rs.5,78,641/-. Court below therefore accepted the said valuation and directed payment of a L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 59 further amount of Rs.2,31,526/- which we do not find on the higher side, taking into account the fact that the award has been passed based on sufficient material.
B-14.3 Court below further directed payment of 10% of the market value as compensation towards injurious affection for the balance extent of land available with the claimant. The claimant was the owner of 5.60 Ares. 2.88 Ares was acquired and the balance remaining is 2.72 Ares. It was held by the Reference Court that the utility of the property has not been lost in any manner however considering the presence of railway line abutting the remaining property taking into account the fact that it would affect the value of balance property 10% of the market value was fixed as compensation for the balance extent of 2.72 Ares. We do not find the aforesaid award exorbitant in any manner and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the said award.
B-15.1. L.A.A.No.539/2013 and Cross Objection No.46/2015 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No. 80/2010 The extent of land acquired is 4.66 and 0.80 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,05,080/- per Are for 4.66 Ares and Rs.1,32,936/- per Are for L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 60 0.80 Ares. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at 2,37,647/- per Are. Claimants relied upon Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of judgment in L.A.R.No.4/2010 dated 19/01/2011. Ext.A2 is the copy of fair value statement dated 13/12/2011. Ext.A3 is the certified copy of deed No.6165/2005 dated 7/11/2005. Ext.A4 is the certified copy of judgment in LAR No.6/2010 of Additional Sub Court, N.Paravur. Ext.C1 is the commission report. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as AWs 1 and 2. Respondents placed reliance upon Exts.R1 to R4, mahazar, sketch etc. B-15.2. The property of the claimants came under two categories. Category No.10 wet land having pathway and category No.12 which was wet land now remaining as dry land having a pathway. Claimants objected to the categorisation. According to them, it ought to have come under category No.13 which is wet land now converted as dry land and having road frontage for which the LAO has awarded land value at 1,46,219/- per Are. The Advocate Commissioner AW2 who prepared Ext.X1 report and sketch has reported that the entire property is situated L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 61 as a single plot having Nayathodu-Angamaly PWD road, for a portion of the entire property. The Advocate Commissioner however reported that the entire land has now been reclaimed by the railway authorities. Therefore she could not identify whether the land was lying as wet land either reclaimed or not. The Court below observed that the revenue records in the file shows that 4.66 Ares as wet land and there is no reason to change the category. Court below therefore did not find it necessary to change the category of 4.66 Ares of land. Similarly, such a claim made by the claimant as far as 0.80 Ares was concerned, was also denied.
B-15.3. In respect of the land value, Court below had placed reliance upon Ext.A3 document which is the certified copy of sale deed No.6165/2005. By Ext.A3, an extent of 20.23 Ares is purchased for a total consideration of 40 lakhs. The value per Are of which would come to Rs.1,97,726/-. The date of document is 07/11/2005. The Court below enhanced Rs.12,500/- per Are taking into account the fact that the property if sold in loss would fetch a higher amount and accordingly found that the land value L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 62 would come to Rs.2,10,026/-. Further, it was found that the claimants' property is more important than that of the property covered by Ext.A3 and accordingly 30% enhancement made to the value as fixed by the Court and accordingly found that the value as on the date of notification would come to Rs.2,73,294/-. Taking into account the difference in the time gap, 10% appreciation was given and therefore the land value was fixed at Rs.3,00,623/- per Are. In so far a no separate evidence was adduced to prove the land value of 4.66 Ares of wet land, taking into account the comparative difference between the land value for 0.80 Ares as fixed by the LAO and the value of 4.66 Ares of wet land, fixed the land value for wet land at Rs.1,32,567/- per Are. That is by computing 126.158% of the amount granted by the LAO.
B-15.4.The respondent had filed Cross Objection No.46/2015 wherein the claim has been made as land value at Rs.1,84,460/- per Are, as 126.158% of the market value is a higher amount than what has been fixed by the Court below.
B-16.1. L.A.A.Nos.603/2013 and 581/2013 arise from the L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 63 judgment in L.A.R.No.69/2010. L.A.A.No.603/2013 is filed by the State and L.A.A.No.581/2013 is filed by the claimants. The extent of land acquired is 5.76 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at 5,14,335/- per Are. Further, an amount of Rs.5,30,934/- has been awarded as structural value based on the valuation report and 90% of the market value as compensation for injurious affection for the remaining extent of 0.33 Ares. Before the Reference Court, claimants relied upon Exts.A1 to A15. Ext.A1 is the power of attorney. Ext.A2 is the settlement and release deed. Exts.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed No.1448/04 of SRO, Angamaly. Exts.A4 to A6 are the certified copies of document Nos.1555/04 dated 27/3/2004, 1717/04 dated 06/04/2004 and 1738/04 dated 07/04/2004 respectively. Ext.A7 is the certified copy of judgment in LAR 10/2002 of Additional Sub Court, N.Paravur dated 31/10/2005. Ext.A8 is the certified copy of sale deed No.8359/07 of SRO, Chengamanad dated 4/12/2007. Ext.A9 is the certified copy of judgment in LAA No. 570/09 of this Court. Exts.A10 to A12 are the certified copies of judgment in LAR L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 64 No.107/09 dated 23/12/2010, LAR No.118/09 dated 27/1/2011, LAR No.152/09 dated 10/08/2011 of the Sub Court, N.Paravur. Ext.A13 is the certified copy of revised survey records Area Register and sketch. Ext.A14 is the reply of SRO, Angamaly and Ext.A15 is the valuation report dated 09/06/2009. Ext.X1 series are the commission report and sketch. Six witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as AWs 1 to 6. Respondents placed reliance upon Exts.R1 to R4. But, no witness was examined on behalf the respondents. While fixing the land value, the Court below had relied upon Ext.A3 sale deed. Claimant has also preferred an appeal as LAA No.581/2013 wherein land value is claimed at Rs.7,41,300/- per Are and injurious affection at Rs.3,00,000/- per cent.
B-16.2. With reference to the compensation granted for the structures, Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.2,69,066/-. Ext.A16 is the valuation report prepared by AW3, an expert engineer. Court below placed reliance upon AW3 and found that depreciation was not calculated. Therefore, taking into account depreciation, it was held that the total value fo structures L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 65 would come to Rs.8 lakhs and therefore directed payment of a further amount of Rs.5,30,934/-. Taking into consideration the fact that the direction has been issued based on sufficient material, we do not think it necessary to interfere with the said award.
B-16.3. With regard to injurious affection, it was stated that the claimant originally had 6.0 Ares out of which 5.76 ares was acquired. Since the balance extent of land was only a small strip of land which has become useless, direction was issued to grant 90% of the market value for injurious affection for the remaining 0.33 Ares. Though the claimants, in their appeal, has sought for injurious affection for their balance property at Rs.3,00,000/- per cent, having regard to the fact that the Court below has properly considered the claim based on available materials and 90% has been granted, the appellants' claim is unjustified. We do not find any error in the said judgment taking into consideration the factual aspects in the matter.
B-17.1 L.A.A.No.616/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.64/2011. The extent of land acquired is 0.40 Ares and L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 66 2.36 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at 4,71,900/- per Are. Court below also granted 5% of the land value towards injurious affection for 1.16 Ares and 50% of the market value towards injurious affection for 1.5 Ares. Claimants relied upon Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of judgment in L.A.R.No.102/2009 of Sub Court, N.Paravur. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of judgment in LAR No.68/2010 of Sub Court, N.Paravur. Ext.A3 is the certified copy of judgment in LAR 71/2010 of Sub Court, N.Paravur. Ext.A4 is the copy of Mahazar in LAR 188/2007. Ext.X1 is the commission report and sketch. One witness was examined on behalf of the claimants as AW1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The Court below had relied upon Ext.A3 judgment, to fix the land value.
B-17.2 The acquisition in the above case was from two separate plots 0.40 ares was acquired from 10.56 ares and 2.31 from 26.62 Ares. It is observed by the Court below that on acquisition of 0.40 Ares, the frontage of the northern tarred road is not lost to the remaining land and there is no severals for the L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 67 balance property except for the presence of the railway line. Therefore on account of the inconvenience that may be caused due to the present railway line, Court below directed payment of 5% of the market value as compensation for injurious affection. With reference to the other acquisition of 2.31 Ares, it is observed that only a balance of 1.5 Ares remaining as per the sketch prepared in the matter Since the said property has no road access, Court below directed payment of 50% for 1.5 Ares as compensation. We do not find any error in the above approach taken by the Reference Court in regard to compensation for injurious affection.
B-18.1. L.A.A.No.659/2013 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.16/2011. The extent of land acquired is 0.91 Ares and 1.43 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,96,480/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at 4,33,200/- per Are. Reference Court also awarded 20% of the land value towards injurious affection for the remaining 0.02 Ares. Before the Reference Court, claimants relied upon Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of judgment in L.A.R.No.100/2009 of Additional L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 68 Sub Court, N.Paravur dated 31/01/2012. Ext.A2 is the copy of mahazar in LAR No.189/2007. Ext.A3 is the certified copy of judgment in LAR 32/11 of Additional Sub Court, N.Paravur dated 13/09/2012. Ext.A4 is the copy of Mahazar in LAR 188/2007. Ext.X1 is the commission report. One witness was examined on behalf of the claimants as AW1. Respondents placed reliance upon Exts.R1 to R4, mahazar, sketch etc. While fixing the land value, the Court below had relied upon Ext.A1 judgment.
B-18.2. In regard to injurious affection, for the balance extent of land left out after acquisition, Court below felt that 20% of the market value of the land would be a reasonable compensation which we do not find it excessive and no interference is required to the same.
B-19.1. L.A.A.No.54/2014 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.49/2011. The extent of land acquired is 0.74 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at 4,26,701/- per Are. Reference Court also granted 50% of the land value as injurious affection for the balance 2.31 Ares. Before the Reference Court, claimants L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 69 relied upon Ext.A1, certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.109/2009 of Additional Sub Court, N.Paravur dated 24/11/2011. Ext.X1 is the Commission report. One witness was examined on behalf of the claimants as AW1. Respondents relied upon Exts.R1 to R8, Mahazar, sketch etc. The Court below had relied upon Ext.A1 judgment.
B.19.2. Court below also granted enhanced compensation for injurious affection for the remaining property having an extent of 2.31 Ares. The total extent of property available with the claimant was 3.05 Ares, out of which 0.74 Ares was acquired. It is observed that the railway line abuts the remaining property and the value of the property will be considerably reduced. Court below therefore directed payment of 50% of the market value of the remaining land. We do not find any error in the aforesaid view in regard to the claim for injurious affection and the same does not require any modification.
B-20.1. L.A.A.No.75/2014 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.5/2012. The extent of land acquired is 1.07 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are. The Reference L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 70 Court enhanced the land value at 4,26,701/- per Are. Reference Court also granted 50% of the land value as injurious affection for the remaining 1.83 Ares. Claimants relied upon Ext.A1, certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.109/2009 of Additional Sub Court, N.Paravur dated 24/11/2011. Ext.X1 is the Commission report. One witness was examined on behalf of the claimants as AW1. Respondents relied upon Exts.R1 to R8, Mahazar, sketch etc. While fixing the land value, the Court below had relied upon Ext.A1 judgment in LAR No.109/2009.
B-20.2. Court below also granted enhanced compensation for injurious affection for the remaining property having an extent of 1.83 Ares. The total extent of property available with the claimant was 2.90 Ares, out of which 1.07 Ares was acquired. It is observed that the railway line abuts the remaining property and the value of the property will be considerably reduced. Court below therefore directed payment of 50% of the market value of the remaining land. We do not find any error in the aforesaid view in regard to the claim for injurious affection and the same does not require any modification.
L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 71 B-21.1. L.A.A.No.315/2014 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.32/2011. The extent of land acquired is 1.52 Ares. The LAO fixed the land value at Rs.1,96,480/- per Are. On a reference under Section 18 of the LA Act, the Reference Court enhanced the land value at 4,33,200/- per Are.
B-21.2. Claimants relied upon Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.100/2009 and Ext.A2 is the mahazar in L.A.R.No.100/2009 dated 31/01/2012. Ext.X1 series is the Commission report and sketch. One witness was examined on behalf of the claimants as CW1. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. While fixing the land value, the Court below had relied upon Ext.A1 judgment in LAR No.100/09.
B-21.3. The remaining property of the petitioner was 0.75 Ares. The acquisition was on the northern side as evident from Ext.X1(a) plan. It is observed that on account of acquisition, an access to the remaining property is lost. Having found that the remaining property is injuriously affected, the court directed payment of 90% of the land value towards compensation for injurious affection. In so far as the balance extent of land has L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 72 virtually become useless and only a small extent we do not think it necessary to interfere with the judgment.
4. In order to fix the land value, LAO classified the land into 13 categories, which are as under:
Category Classification of land
I Dry land having bus route facilities to
Angamaly.
II Dry land adjacent to Tarred road having no
bus route facilities.
III Dry land having road access opposite to the
railway line
IV Dry land having gravel road.
V Dry land having only pathway
VI Dry land interior and without any road
access
VII Wet land without road frontage
VIII Wet land having tar road frontage
IX Wet land having gravel road frontage
X Wet land having pathway
XI Wet now Dry land having no road access
XII Wet now Dry land having only pathway
XIII Wet now dry land having road frontage
5. The LAO thereafter verified the documents three years prior to the date of Sec.4(1) notification and within a radius of 5 L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 73 Kms around the alignment in Angamaly and Nedumbassery villages.
6. In respect of category No.I, LAO fixed the land value at Rs.2,29,164/- per Are, based on document Nos.1555/2004, 1717/2004 and 1738/2004 of S.R.O. Angamaly and by giving 30% escalation to the said value taking into account the time gap between the date of document and the date of Sec.4(1) notification.
7. For category No.II, he reduced 5% from the value given in Category No.1 and fixed the land value at Rs.2,17,706/- per Are.
8. For Category No.III, he reduced 5% from the value given in Category No.II and fixed the land value at Rs.2,06,821/- per Are.
9. For Category No.IV, he reduced 5% from the value given in Category No.III and fixed the value at Rs.1,96,480/-.
10. For Category No.V, land value was fixed reducing 5% from category No.IV, at Rs.1,86,656/-.
11. For Category No.VI, again 5% was reduced from the value of Category No.V, and fixed at Rs.1,77,323/-. L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 74
12. Lands involved in Category Nos.VII to XIII, are either wet lands or converted wet lands. For valuing category No.VII he relied upon document No.4499/2004 of SRO Chengamanad. 35% increase was given taking into account the time gap between the date of document and the date of Sec.4(1) notification, and fixed the land value at Rs.1,00,076/-.
13. For category No.VIII, he gave an increase of 15% from Category No.VII and fixed the land value at Rs.1,15,087/-.
14. For Category No.IX, 10% increase was given to the value of land in Category No.VII and fixed the land value at Rs.1,10,083/- per Are.
15. For Category No.X, 5% increase to the value of Category No.VII was given and fixed the value at Rs.1,05,080/-.
16. For Category No.XI, he gave 10% increase to the value fixed for Category No.VIII and fixed the value at Rs.1,26,596/-.
17. For category No.XII, he granted 5% increase to the value given to Category No.XI and fixed the land value at Rs.1,32,926/-.
18. For category No.XIII, he fixed the land value at Rs.1,46,219/- by giving 10% increase to the value of Category L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 75 No.12.
19. In these appeals we are concerned with categories I to V, VII, VIII, X to XIII. LAO had relied upon the comparable sale method to arrive at the land value in these cases. But, it is relevant to note that in none of these cases, any attempt had been made to prove the market value of land and sustain the award by producing the documents and by adducing evidence to prove the genuineness of the document. Unless the documents are produced and the comparability of those documents with reference to the acquired land is proved by the LAO, Court below will have to assess the market value based upon materials produced by the claimants.
20. Since small pieces of land have been acquired at a stretch in two villages, we are of the view that the pattern adopted by the LAO with reference to the categorization can be accepted, unless it is modified by the Sub Court based on factual consideration. In other words, there is no reason to change the category of the land that is being acquired unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.
L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 76
21. Though the claimants have separately contested the cases and few of the cases have been considered as a batch, substantially the Court below had relied upon Document No.1448/2004 dated 23/08/2004 in order to arrive at the market value of the land. But, still different Courts have taken different approaches while considering the land value in each of the cases. However, the Court below, in most of the cases where the document had been relied upon, had observed that the documents which are relied upon is not comparable with the acquired land. That is, the document relied upon by the claimants to prove the market value, has more advantages in comparison with the acquired land. Therefore, the Court below gave a deduction to the value as seen in document No.1448/2004 and thereafter gave an increase/escalation taking into account the time gap between the date of document and the date of Sec.4 (1) notification. But, it could be seen that a uniform method has not been adopted in any of the cases nor has any reason been stated for differentiating between the standard to be adopted. In some cases, earlier judgments of the same Court, which is in L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 77 appeal had been relied upon.
22. In L.A.A.No.107/2012 (L.A.R.No.155/2009), Court below relied upon sale deed No.1448/2004, deducted 45% of the value of property taking into account the dissimilarities between the land covered by the said document and acquired land, and thereafter, an addition of 30% was granted taking into account the time gap between the date of document and date of Section 4(1) notification. The very same document has been relied upon in most of the cases, but the deduction and addition differed. In L.A.A.No.139/2012 (L.A.R.No.70/2009), Court below deducted 40% and gave an escalation of 18%. In L.A.A.No.165/2012 (L.A.R.No.119/2009) Court below deducted 40% and gave an increase of 20%. In L.A.A.No.138/2013 (L.A.R.No.72/2009) Court below reduced 25% and granted 18% enhancement for the time gap. In L.A.A.No.169/2013 (L.A.R. No.118/2009) Court below added 20% towards the increase on account of time gap between Ext.A1 and the date of notification and deducted 35% on account of other factors. In L.A.A.No.198/2013 and L.A.A.No. 208/2012 (L.A.R No.120/2009), Reference Court, deducted 50% and L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 78 enhanced 18%. In L.A.A.No.220/2013 (L.A.R.No.73/2009) Court below deducted 25% and added 15%. In L.A.A.No.254/2013 (LAR No.116/2009) Court below deducted 40% and increased 15%. In LA.A.No.296/2013 (LAR No.79/2009) Court below deducted 25% and enhanced by 15%. In L.A.A.No.323/2013 (L.A.R.No.147/2009) Court below deducted 30% and added 15% as escalation. In L.A.A.No.502/2013 (L.A.R.No.152/2009) Court below deducted 30% and thereafter added 20%. In L.A.A.No.537/2013 (L.A.R.No.117/2009) reduced 25% and thereafter, increased it by 15%. In L.A.A.No.740/2012 (L.A.R.No. 107/2009) 40% was deducted and 20% was increased. In LAA No.177/2013 (L.A.R.No.72/2010), Court below deducted 25% and enhancement of 18% was granted. In L.A.A.No.203/2013 (L.A.R.No.71/2010) a deduction of 25% was made and thereafter gave an increase by 18%. In L.A.A.No.204/2013 (L.A.R.No. No.71/2009) Court below deducted 20% and added 18%. In L.A.A.No.523/2013 (L.A.R.No. 66/2010), Court reduced 25% and thereafter increased it by 20%. In L.A.A.No.603/2013 and 581 of 2013 (L.A.R.No.69/2010) Court below deducted 20% and added L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 79 8% on cumulative basis for 2 years and 6% for nine months.
23. L.A.A.No.715/2012 (L.A.R No.114/2009) relates to wet land. The Court below relied upon Ext.A7 judgment, which is the certified copy of judgment in LAR Nos.146/2009 and 155/2009 of the Sub Court, Paravur , against which LAA No.107/2012 is pending. Court below reduced 15% of the value covered by Ext.A7 and fixed the land value at Rs.3,16,030/- per Are.
24. In L.A.A.No.510/2013 (L.A.R.No.62/2011) and L.A.A.No.542/2013 (L.A.R.No.31/2011), Court below placed reliance upon the judgment in L.A.R.No.152/2009 against which LAA No.502/2013 is pending.
25. In L.A.A.No.55/2014 (L.A.R.No.18/2011) Court below placed reliance on the judgment in LAR No.72/09 against which LAA No.138/2013 is pending.
26. In L.A.A.No.245/2012 (L.A.R.No.103/2009), L.A.A.No.159/2013 (L.A.R.No.100/2009), L.A.A.No.168/2013 (L.A.R.No.131/2009), L.A.A.No.190/2013 (L.A.R.No. 103/2009), L.A.A.No.194/2013 (L.A.R. No.106/2009), L.A.A.No.196/2013 (L.A.R.No.101/2009), L.A.A.No.217/2013 (L.A.R No.102/2009), L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 80 L.A.A.No.273/2013 (L.A.R.No. 68/2010), Court relied upon the judgment in L.A.R.No.118/2009, against which LAA No.169/2013 is pending. In L.A.R.No.118/2009, Court below placed reliance upon Ext.A2 which, in turn, was based on sale deed No.1448/2004.
27. In L.A.A.No.494/2013 (L.A.R.No. 15/2011) land value was fixed by the Court below based on the judgment in L.A.R.No.129/09. In LAR 129/2009, Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at 1,86,656/- and the Reference Court refixed the land value at Rs.3,98,840/-. While the Court below relied upon document No.1448/2004, deducted 35% and thereafter gave an increase at 18%.
28. In L.A.A.No.586/2013 (L.A.R.No.70/2010) Court below relied upon the judgment in L.A.R No.71/2010 against which LAA No.203/2013 is pending.
29. In L.A.A.No.539/2013 (L.A.R.No. 80/2010), Court below had placed reliance upon Ext.A3, document No.6165/2005 dated 7/11/2005. By Ext.A3, an extent of 20.23 Ares is purchased for a total consideration of 40 lakhs. The value per Are of which would L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 81 come to Rs.1,97,726/-. The date of document is 07/11/2005. The Court below enhanced Rs.12,500/- per Are taking into account the fact that the property if sold in lots would fetch a higher amount and accordingly found that the land value would come to Rs.2,10,026/-. Further, it was found that the claimants' property is more important than that of the property covered by Ext.A3 and accordingly 30% enhancement made to the value as fixed by the Court and accordingly found that the value as on the date of notification would come to Rs.2,73,294/-. Taking into account the difference in the time gap, 10% appreciation was given and therefore the land value was fixed at Rs.3,00,623/- per Are. In so far as no separate evidence was adduced to prove the land value of 4.66 Ares of wet land, taking into account the comparative difference between the land value for 0.80 Ares as fixed by the LAO and the value of 4.66 Ares of wet land, fixed the land value for wet land at Rs.1,32,567/- per Are. That is by computing 126.158% of the amount granted by the LAO. We are of the view that Ext.A3 document could not have been the basis for fixing land value for the aforesaid property. The Advocate Commissioner L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 82 has not given the details regarding the aforesaid property except stating that it is by the side of PWD road. When a larger extent of property is being sold in plots, certain area will have to be left for common purposes which was not considered by the Court below. There is no basis for giving an enhancement of 30% over and above the value of the property and thereafter giving an appreciation for the time gap. Therefore, the very basis for fixation of land value in the above case cannot be acceptable.
30. In L.A.A.No.616/2013 (L.A.R.No.64/2011), Court below had relied upon the judgment in LAR 71/2010 against which LAA No.203/2013 is pending.
31. In L.A.A.No.659/2013 (L.A.R.No.16/2011) Court below relied upon the judgment in L.A.R.No.100/2009 against which LAA 159/2013 is pending.
32. In L.A.A.No.54/2014 (L.A.R.No.49/2011) and L.A.A.No.75/2014 (L.A.R.No.5/2012), Court below relied upon the judgment in L.A.R.No.109/2009. In the above case, Court below relied upon the judgment in LAR.No.118/2009 and 96% of the said value was fixed as land value in this case. LAA.No.169/2013 had L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 83 been filed against the judgment in LAR No.118/2009, which in turn, was decided based on sale deed No.1448/2004.
33. In L.A.A.No.315/2014 (L.A.R.No.32/2011), Court below relied upon the judgment in L.A.R.No.100/2009 against which LAA No.159/2013 is pending.
34. In L.A.A.No.227/2013 (L.A.R.No.76/2010) Court below placed reliance on the judgment in L.A.R.No.75/2010. The value of the property covered by Ext.A1 as fixed by the LAO was 1,00,076/- whereas a higher land value was given in the present case. It was observed that since a 215.79% enhancement has been given for the land involved in the earlier case, a similar enhancement has to be given for the land involved in the present case also and accordingly, refixed the land value at Rs.2,48,346/- per Are for two items of land and Rs.3,15,526/- per Are for the remaining land.
35. As far as category Nos. I to VI are concerned, those are dry lands, where the Land Acquisition Officer himself had followed a particular pattern, depending upon the nature of access. We are of the view that once the land value of Category No.I is fixed, L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 84 the same pattern can be followed in fixing the land value of Category Nos. II to VI as well.
36. With reference to wet land as well, neither the claimants nor the State has produced any evidence to prove the market value of the land under acquisition. Therefore, it would be better to follow the pattern that had been followed by the Land Acquisition Officer after fixing the land value of property coming under Category No.VII. It can as well be a proportion in comparison with the value given to other lands under acquisition.
37. Learned counsel for claimants/ appellants /cross objectors mainly relied upon the evidence adduced in LAR Nos.70/2009, 69/2010 and 120/2009, against which claimants had preferred appeals as L.A.A.Nos.139 of 2012, 581 of 2013 and 208 of 2012. In LAR No.70/2009, the LAO awarded the land value at Rs.2,06,821/- per Are which was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.3,25,208/- per Are. In the appeal, the claimant claimed land value at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, claimant relied upon Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No.1448/2004 dated L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 85 23/03/2004. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed No.5920/2005 dated 27/11/2005 and Ext.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed No.8359/2007 dated 04/12/2007. He also examined AWs 1 to 3. Respondent relied upon Exts.R1 to R8. Exts.C1, C1
(a) and C1(b) were marked as court exhibits. Court below observed that the acquired property is a dry land and had a building, it has direct road access on the southern side which is a Panchayat road. The property is 2 Kms away from the National Highway and 1.5 Kms away from Angamaly town. Municipal road passes about 20 metres eastwards from the acquired property. Cochin International Airport is situated at a distance of 1.5 Kms. As per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the Airport is situated within a distance of 2 kms. As far as Ext.A1 is concerned, it is a property having an extent of 5 Ares with a residential building sold for a consideration of Rs.45 lakhs in which the value of building is stated to be Rs.19 lakhs. The property is dry land. The property covered by Ext.A1 situates within a radius of 400 metres away from National Highway and further, it is in a prime residential area, 1 Km away from the Cochin International Airport L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 86 and 800 metres away from Angamaly Town. The value of the property covered by Ext.A1 is Rs.5,20,000/-. Ext.A2 is the sale deed executed in the name of Orma Marbles wherein an extent of 4.86 Ares is purchased at Rs.4,93,827/- per Are. The said property abuts the National Highway and 700 metres away from Athani junction which is having commercial importance. Therefore, the Court below found that Ext.A1 property is more suitable than Ext.A2 for comparison. Court below felt that due to the proximity to the National Highway, the property covered by Ext.A1 is more important and will fetch more value than the acquired property which is situated at a distance of 2 Kms away from the National Highway and that too, in a Panchayat area. It is observed that the property as per Ext.A1 will fetch more value than the acquired property. It is argued that Exts.A1 and A2 would show a marked increase in the land value over a period of time, which also is a factor to be considered. Similarly in LAA No.581/2013 arising from LAR No.69/2010, learned counsel, having referred to various documents Exts.A3, A4, A5 and A6, submitted that the price in the locality has been increasing over a L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 87 period of time which is also evident from Ext.A8 sale deed No.8359/2007 of SRO Chengamand dated 04/12/2007. Apparently, the Court below thought it fit to place reliance upon document No.1448/2004, the validity of which we shall consider in due course. In L.A.A.No.245 of 2012 also, similar approach has been taken by the court below.
38. Learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance upon the following judgments:
i) Mehrawal Kewaji Trust v. State of Punjab [2012 (2) KLT 542]. This judgment is relied upon to emphasise that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, the highest of the exemplars has to be considered if it reflects a bona fide transaction.
ii) Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another [2009 (15) SCC 769]. In this case, the Apex Court was highlighting the fact that the fair value rates adopted by the Government cannot be treated as market value of land under acquisition.
iii) The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 88 Another [(2008) 14 SCC 745]. This judgment is relied upon to contend that when the document relating to a previous year is being compared for assessing the market value of the land, the increase in rate per every year should be at a cumulative rate and not at a flat rate.
iv) Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs. v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 329]. In this judgment, the Apex Court was really highlighting on the principles evolved in fixing the market value. It was held that while determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-
vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. It is also held that when a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and he hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price.
v) In State of Kerala v Thomas and Another [2016 L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 89 (1) KLJ 456], a Division Bench of this Court while considering the question whether the Kerala Stamp (Fixation of Fair Value of land) Rules, 1995 is to be considered, held that the fair value fixed at the 1995 Rules can be a relevant piece of evidence to determine the market value of the land under acquisition. However, the fixation of fair value should be within a reasonable time from the date of notification Under Section 4(1) of the LA Act and suitable adjustments will have to be made, having regard to the positive and negative factors, if any, on the land under acquisition.
vi) Reliance has been placed on the judgment in LAA No.85/2012 with reference to the value of Category No.8 which is wet land having access to the road frontage. LAO awarded Rs.1,15,087/- per Are. The appeal had arisen from the judgment in L.A.R.No.145/2000. A Division Bench of this Court refixed the land value at Rs.3 lakhs per Are. While observing so, no material is seen to have been relied upon other than Ext.A1 which is the judgment of the Reference Court in LAR No.75/2010 wherein the land value was refixed at Rs. 3,71,800/-. We do not find any basis for fixation of the value in order to treat the same as a L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 90 precedent. However, it could be noticed that as far as category No.8 is concerned, this Court had fixed the value at Rs.3 lakhs.
39. Learned counsel for the respondent, on other hand, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others v. K.S.Gangadharappa and Another [(2009) 11 SCC 164]. This judgment was relied upon to emphasise that the market value of the large area cannot be determined by rates of small plots and that the market value cannot be evaluated without any foundation or basis. It is held that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded; neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 91 wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Section 23 of the LA Act, enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Since impracticability of determining the potential value cannot be done with precision, there is bound to be some amount of guesswork involved while determining the potentiality. Yet another judgment relied upon is State of Kerala v. Jose Simon and Others [2009(1) KHC 881] wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that post notification documents can be relied on, in the absence L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 92 of relevant pre-notification documents.
40. There cannot be any doubt regarding the principle adopted for valuing the land under acquisition. As already indicated, lands come under different categories. But in most of the cases the Court below had relied upon document no.1448/2004 as a basis for arriving at the market value.
41. Evidence adduced in the case, especially the report of the Advocate Commissioner in LAR No.70/2009 would clearly indicate that the exemplar land (document no.1448/2004) is situated in a more prominent place in Angamaly town. Location of the said property being in a better position, necessarily, the acquired property cannot claim the very same value. When comparable sale method is being adopted and the Court relies upon the value shown in a particular document, the advantages and disadvantages of the relied upon document with reference to the acquired property has to be ascertained, unless it is found to be similar in all respects. In none of these cases, sufficient materials are available in order to arrive at a conclusion that the acquired land is similar in nature as that of the property covered L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 93 by document No.1448/2004. Therefore, Court below while relying upon the said document, had thought it fit to grant a reduction, taking into account the disadvantages of the property involved in the acquisition, in comparison with the exemplar document.
42. Document No.1448/2004 is executed on 23/03/2004. The property is situated in Sy.No.232/14-1, 232/14-2, 232/14-3. Total extent of land is 5 Ares of garden land sold for a consideration of Rs.45 lakhs. There was a building in the property which was valued at Rs.19 lakhs. The land value by itself as per the document would come to Rs.26 lakhs and therefore, the value per Are would come to Rs.5,20,000/- It is stated that the property is at Nazreth road, which starts from National Highway and is 400 metres away. The acquired land is 500 metres on the northern side of the property and it is a residential area. In the note to award, it is stated that the property in Document No1448/2004 has been purchased at a fancy price and is not comparable with the acquired land. Other than making a statement in the note to award, no evidence has been adduced by the LAO. However, it is admitted that the L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 94 property is situated in a residential area and there was a building in the property, which was valued at Rs.19 lakhs. Building value is apparently an approximate value shown for registration purposes. The exact value of the building has not been ascertained. However, there is no material to indicate that the transaction is not genuine. Therefore, Court below was justified in placing reliance upon the said document. Certain deductions were given to the value as shown in the said document, taking into account the comparison with reference to the acquired property. There is a time gap of 2 years and 9 months between the date of execution of the document and the date of Sec.4(1) notification, and therefore, escalation for two years at a particular rate cumulatively as held in The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (supra), has to be given as escalation.
43. We are of the view that the same method can be adopted after giving a reasonable deduction to the value shown in document No.1448/2004, which is Rs.5,20,000/- per Are. The dissimilarities of the acquired land with reference to the exemplar land has been reiterated by the Court below. There is no material L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 95 to take a different view. Other documents relied upon are rightly rejected by the Court below for valid reasons. However, taking into consideration all the relevant facts, we are of the view that a uniform deduction of 35% can be made to the value shown in document No.1448/2004. If 35% is deducted, the land value would come to Rs.3,38,000/- per Are. Taking into account a reasonable increase, at 10% per year, on a cumulative basis, for two years it would come to Rs.4,08,980/-. If this value is taken as the value for category No.I, taking into account the formula adopted by the LAO, the value for the following categories will be as under:
Category Value per Are
(Rs.)
I 4,08,980/-
II 3,88,531/-
III 3,69,104/-
IV 3,50,650/-
V 3,33,117/-
44. As far as wet land is concerned, though the LAO had relied upon a document, no materials have been produced to L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 96 prove the comparability. The claimant's also did not rely upon any document. Therefore, it is better to fix the land value on the basis of a proportion, taking into account the difference in value awarded by the LAO for category No.V and VII.
45. With reference to Category Nos. VII to XII, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the land value, taking into account the value given to Category No.VII and thereafter making additions. The value of Category No.VII in comparison to the value of Category No.V would be roughly 53.61%. Therefore, the value of Category No.VII can be fixed at Rs.53.61% of value of Category No.V, which would come to Rs.1,78,584/-. By adding 15% to the said amount, we can arrive at the value of Category No.VIII which would come to Rs.2,05,372/-. By adding 15% to the said amount, we can arrive at Category No.X, i.e. Rs.2,36,178/-. 10% increase to the value of Category No.VIII can be fixed as value of Category No.XI, which would come to Rs.2,25,909/-. 5% increase to the value of Category No.XI was adopted by LAO to fix the value of Category No.XII, and adopting the same method the value would come to Rs.2,37,204/-.For category No.XIII, 10% L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 97 increase to the value of Category No.XII is adopted and the value would come to Rs.2,60,924/-.
46. In the result, these appeals are disposed of as under:
A-1.1 LAA Nos.107/2012 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.155/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.2,05,372/- per Are. Cross Objection No.70/2012 is dismissed.
A-2.1 LAA No. 139/2012 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.70/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,69,104 /- per Are.
A-3.1 LAA No. 165/2012 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.119/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,69,104 /- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly. Cross Objection No. 68/2012 is dismissed.
A-4.1 LAA No.715/2012 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.114/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.1,78,584/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
A-5.1 LAA No. 138/2013 is allowed. The judgment in L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 98 LAR No.72/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,69,104 /- per Are.
A-6.1 LAA No. 169/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.118/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,69,104 /- per Are. The award for additional building value of Rs.26,712/- is set aside.
A-7.1 LAA No. 208/2012 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.120/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,50,650/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly. LAA No.198/2013 is dismissed.
A-8.1 LAA No. 220/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.73/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,69,104 /- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
A-9.1 LAA Nos.227/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.76/2010 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.2,05,372/- per Are for Category No.VIII property having an extent of 5.26 Ares and 4.10 Ares. The land value is refixed at Rs.2,60,924/- for 1.83 Ares coming under Category No.XIII. L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 99 A-10.1 LAA Nos.254/2013 is dismissed. Cross Objection No.20/2015 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.116/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,33,117/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
A-11.1 LAA No. 296/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.79/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,69,104/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
A-12.1 LAA No. 323/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.147/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,50,650/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
A-13.1 LAA No. 502/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.152/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,50,650/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly. Cross Objection No.216/2014 is dismissed.
A-14.1 LAA No. 510/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.62/2011 is modified. The land value is refixed at L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 100 Rs.3,50,650/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
A-15.1 LAA No. 537/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.117/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,69,104 /- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
A-16.1 LAA No. 542/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.31/2011 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,50,650/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly. Cross Objection No.217/2014 is dismissed.
A-17.1 LAA No. 55/2014 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.18/2011 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,69,104/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-1.1 LAA No.245/2012 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.103/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,88,531/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly. LAA No.190/2013 is dismissed.
B-2.1 LAA No.740/2012 is allowed. The judgment in LAR L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 101 No.107/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.2,37,204/-. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-3.1 LAA No. 159/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.100/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,50,650/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-4.1 LAA No. 168/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.131/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,50,650/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-5.1 LAA No.177/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.72/2010 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,88,531/-/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-6.1 LAA No.194/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.106/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,88,531/-/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 102 B-7.1 LAA No.196/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.101/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.2,25,909/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-8.1 LAA No. 203/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.71/2010 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,88,531/-/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-9.1. LAA No.204/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.71/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.4,08,980/- per Are. Cross Objection No.63/2015 is dismissed.
B-10.1 LAA No. 217/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.102/2009 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,50,650/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-11.1 LAA No. 273/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.68/2010 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,88,531/-/- per Are. Compensation awarded for injurious affection is set aside.
L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 103 B-12.1 LAA No.494/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.15/2011 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,33,117/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-13.1 LAA No. 523/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.66/2010 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,88,531/-/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-14.1 LAA No. 586/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.70/2010 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,88,531/-/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-15.1 LAA No.539/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.80/2010 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.2,36,177/- for 4.66 Ares coming under Category No.X and Rs.2,37,204/- for 0.80 Are coming under Category XII. Cross Objection No.46/2015 is dismissed.
B-16.1 LAA No. 603/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.69/2010 is modified. The land value is refixed at L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 104 Rs.3,88,531/-/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly. L.A.A.No.581/2013 is dismissed.
B-17.1 LAA No. 616/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.64/2011 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,88,531/-/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-18.1 LAA No. 659/2013 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.16/2011 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,50,650/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-19.1 LAA No. 54/2014 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.49/2011 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,88,531/-/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-20.1 LAA No. 75/2014 is allowed. The judgment in LAR No.5/2012 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,88,531/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
B-21.1 LAA No. 315/2014 is allowed. The judgment in L.A.A.Nos.107/2012 & connected cases 105 LAR No.32/2011 is modified. The land value is refixed at Rs.3,50,650/- per Are. The award for injurious affection shall stand modified accordingly.
47. The claimants are also entitled for the land value after deducting the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, along with all other statutory benefits and interest.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) sd/-
(K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE) jsr