Kerala High Court
T.K. Surendranath vs State Of Kerala on 27 July, 2012
Author: Pius C.Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2012/5TH SRAVANA 1934
LA.App..No. 134 of 2012 ()
--------------------------
LAR.218/2005 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM
APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS:
----------------------
1. T.K. SURENDRANATH
T.C.24/1986, SARKARESWARY, THYCAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. T.B.THANKAMMA
T.C.24/1986, SARKARESWARY, THYCAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE SECRETARY, TRIDA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA
R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-
07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAA. No. 134 of 2012
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The claimants are the appellants. Their property in Thycaud Village was acquired by the Government at the instance of TRIDA for the purpose of widening of Vellayambalam - Thycaud Road. The above acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification published on 4-6-2003. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of `2,71,700/- per Are. The Reference Court in the first instance would re-fix the land value at `24,23,828/- per Are. The Government preferred LAA. No. 1363 of 2008 against the above award. This court interfered with the award as it was found that the fixation by the learned Subordinate Judge was not based on evidence but was mostly on guess estimate. This court remanded the matter back to the Reference Court. The impugned award is passed pursuant LAA. No. 134 of 2012 -2- to that remand order. Under the impugned award the value of the land is re-fixed at `4,10,000/- per Are. According to the appellants the value presently fixed is grossly inadequate.
2. We have heard the submissions of Mr. Basant Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Mr. S. Jamal, learned senior Government Pleader. Mr. Basant would draw our attention to Ext.C-1 Commissioner's report and Ext. C-1
(a) sketch which were made available after remand by the appellants. It has been very clearly reported by the Advocate Commissioner that the property under acquisition was situated on the Thampanoor - Thycaud -
Vellayambalam main road and also that in close proximity i.e., within 50 metres radius with the City Police Commissioner's Office, Police Parade Ground, Xanadu and Rose House Bungalows under the occupation of Honourable Ministers, Government Women's College, Model School, LAA. No. 134 of 2012 -3- PWD Rest House, Government Guest House, Police Training College, Taj Residency a five star hotel, Muthoot Buildings, Kalabhavan Theatre, Hindi Prachara Sabha's Office etc. are situated. The Commissioner made a comparison of the property under acquisition with the property covered by LAR. No. 219 of 1998 of the same Reference Court which culminated in LAA. No. 727 of 2006, under which the value of the land therein was re-fixed by this Court at `17,31,306/- per Are. The Advocate Commissioner reported that though the property under LAA. No. 727 of 2006 and the property under acquisition in the present case are situated at a distance of 1 km., in terms of commercial importance the properties have equal importance and value. According to Mr. Basant, the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in discarding Ext.C-1 and C-1(a) which are obtained on the basis of inspection conducted with notice to all parties in the case. Drawing our attention to judgment of LAA. No. 134 of 2012 -4- this Court in LAA. No. 2450 of 2008 pertaining to acquisition of land in the same Village for the purpose of widening of the road from Museum to Thampanoor Over Bridge Mr. Basant submitted that under that judgment this court has re-fixed the value of the land under acquisition in that case at `21,38,390/-. It was submitted that though the above judgment was not placed on record the truth is that the property under acquisition is perfectly comparable with the land covered by that judgment (LAA. No. 2450 of 2008). Mr. Basant submitted that there is every justification for granting the value awarded to the claimants in LAA. No. 2450 of 2008 to the present appellants also. It will suffice if the value is re-fixed at `20 lakhs per Are as the claim is limited to that rate.
3. All the submissions of Mr. Basant Balaji were very stiffly opposed by Mr. S.Jamal, senior Government Pleader. Mr. Jamal submitted that the property under acquisition in LAA. No. 134 of 2012 -5- LAA. No. 2450 of 2008 was acquired for the purpose of widening of the road from Museum to Thampanoor Over Bridge. According to Mr. Jamal, that property is more valuable than the present property. He also pointed out that the above acquisition was pursuant to notification published on 7-9-2004 more than one year subsequent to the present notification. He also disputed the submission of Mr. Basant that in terms of commercial importance the property covered by LAR. No. 219 of 1998 (corresponding to LAA. No. 727 of 2006) and the property involved in this appeal have equal importance and value. According to Mr. Jamal, this property cannot claim so much of commercial importance as the property covered by LAR. No. 219 of 1998.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick reappraisal of the evidence available on record. We are LAA. No. 134 of 2012 -6- convinced that the rate presently fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is grossly inadequate.
5. Ext.C-1 commission report and Ext.C-1(a) have been made available subsequent to the order of remand passed by this court in LAA. No. 1363 of 2008. Inspection culminating in C-1 and C-1(a) itself was conducted with notice to all parties. Ext.C-1 and C-1(a) form part of the record in the case. It is seen that the Government or the requisitioning authority made no endeavour to cross examine the Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of showing that the facts reported by the commissioner are not true. According to us, to a great extent the data furnished by the commissioner can be relied on. Relying on C-1 and C-1(a) it has to be found that the property is situated in one of the most important localities in Thiruvananthapuram City in close proximity to various important institutions and establishments. At the same time, we cannot accept the LAA. No. 134 of 2012 -7- argument of Mr. Basant that in terms of commercial importance the property covered by LAA. No. 727 of 2006 and the present properties are equal. We are of the view that in terms of commercial importance the property covered by LAA. No. 727 of 2006 was slightly superior. But we find that the value of `17,31,306/- per Are was arrived at for that property as on 14-5-1997. The present acquisition is on 4-6-2003. It is not in dispute that within Thiruvananthapuram City the value of land has been escalating at the rate of at least 15% per year, which means that the market value of the land covered by LAA. No. 727 of 2006 as on the date of publication of the present notification will be around `32,89,481/-. As indicated already we have made a thorough reappraisal of all the materials on record. We have kept in mind the inputs which are relevant while determining market value of the land acquired under land acquisition proceedings. We are of the LAA. No. 134 of 2012 -8- view that the correct value of the land under acquisition at the relevant time (on 4-6-2003) will not be less than `18 lakhs per Are.
We allow this appeal and re-fix the value of land under acquisition at `18 lakhs per Are. Appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act subject to the conditions which we have imposed while allowing C.M. Application No. 223 of 2012. The parties will suffer their respective costs. Decree copy will be issued to the appellants only after ensuring that the appellants have remitted the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE) ksv/-