ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein owned 47 Ares of land situate in R.S.No.512/2014 of Melthonnakkal Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District. A portion thereof having an area of 39.75 Ares, was acquired for the IVth phase development of Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram, pursuant to a notification dated 5.12.2006 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants claimed land value at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per Are. By award passed on 27.1.2010, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.49,273/- per Are. Dissatisfied with the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants received the compensation awarded by him under protest and prayed for a reference of the dispute regarding land value to the civil court. A reference was accordingly made to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Attingal where it was taken on file and numbered as L.A.R.No.41 of 2012.

(2.) Before the reference court, the appellants filed a statement claiming land value at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per cent. The respondents filed a written statement contending that just and fair compensation has been awarded. Before the reference court, the first appellant/first claimant examined himself as AW1. He also produced and marked Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.805 of 2008 on the file of the very same reference court and Ext.A2 judgment of this court in L.A.A.No.764 of 2011 arising from the said judgment. On the side of the respondents, though no oral evidence was adduced, a copy of the title deed relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing land value was marked as Ext.B1 and a copy of the group sketch as Ext.B2.

(3.) After considering the rival contentions, the reference court enhanced the land value by 100%. In other words, the land value was refixed at Rs.98,546/- per Are. In coming to the said conclusion, the reference court held that though the lands covered by Exts.A1 and A2 judgments are situate in another village, the enhanced land value awarded by this court in Ext.A2 judgment is liable to be taken into account for the purpose of awarding compensation. The reference court however declined to accept the contention of the appellants regarding categorisation of the land. The appellants have, dissatisfied with the land value awarded by the reference court and the classification of the land, filed this appeal.