STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER Vs. K. MADAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Land Acquisition Appeals and the Cross Objections arises from various judgments passed by the reference court with respect to land acquired for the purpose of establishment of Kannur Airport by virtue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 5.12.2007. A total extent of 442.0269 Hectares (1092.248 Acres) of land situated in Kotheri Desom in Keezhallur and Pazhassi Villages in Thalassery Taluk was acquired pursuant to the said notification. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) classified the acquired lands into two category, 'A' and 'B'. The property included in both the categories were dry lands. The lands which are flat, fertile and situated in residential areas with facility of transportation, were included in 'A' category. Lands which are hilly, slanding and situated in interior areas without facility of transportation were included in 'B' category. With respect to properties included in 'A' category, the LAO fixed land value at the rate of Rs. 29,305/- per Are, which is equivalent to Rs. 11,864/- per cent, relying on a basic document, Sale Deed No. 3192/2004, dated 29.12.2004 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Mattannur. Property conveyed through the said document was having an extent of 6.47 Ares comprised in Survey No.64/2 of Keezhallur Village in Kotheri Desom and the consideration reflected therein was at the rate of Rs. 24,420.40 per Are. The LAO fixed the land value by adding 20%, considering the time gap between 2004 to 2007. Thus the land value was calculated as Rs. 29,304.48 per Are, which is rounded to Rs. 29,305/-. With respect to property included in category 'B', the LAO fixed land value at Rs. 20,000/- per Are, which is equivalent to Rs. 8,097/- per cent. The said value was arrived by relying on a document, which is Sale Deed No.3100/2005, dated 22.12.2005 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Mattannur. The property conveyed under the said document was having an extent of 43.91 Ares situated in Survey No.38/1A of Keezhallur Village in Kotheri Desom. Consideration reflected in the said document, after deducting the value for improvements was at the rate of Rs. 24,985.65 per Are, which is rounded to Rs. 25,000/-. The LAO deducted 20% from the said value for the reason that the property conveyed through the said document is situated adjoining to a State Highway, whereas the acquired properties are situated in interior areas. Accordingly the land value was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per Are. The land owners have sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the impugned judgments arose from various references made by the LAO.

(2.) One of the main judgment passed by the reference court, which is relied on in many other cases, is the judgment in L.A.R.Nos.164/2011 and 173/2011. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State as well as different counsel appearing for party respondents/cross objectors have conceded that, the above said judgment can be taken as a leading case for considering the factual matrix involved in the appeals. Claimants in those cases contended before the reference court that, the acquired properties in those cases were having direct road frontage to a mud road, viz; Naga Valavu - Elambra Ambalam - Elambra road. It was also contended that the acquired properties were situated within 3 Kilo Metres from Mattannur Town and within 500 Metres from Elambra Town. Further contention was that the Mattannur-Kannur State Highway is situated within 90 Metres from the acquired properties; and there exist a lot of public institutions in the vicinity, like hospitals, educational institutions etc, within 4 Kilo Metres from the acquired properties. The claimants sought for enhancement of the land value at least to Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. Exts.A1 to A6 documents are the documents produced by the claimants in those cases in support of their contentions. The respondents in the reference cases had resisted the claim by contending that the value fixed by the LAO is the market value prevailing, fixed on the basis of the basic documents mentioned above, which were marked in evidence as Exts.R1 and R2. Report of the Advocate Commissioner marked in the said case is Ext.X1. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the reference court found that, Exts.A5 and A6 documents cannot be relied on for fixing land value of the acquired properties, because the properties covered under those documents are situated within the limits of Mattannur Municipality, whereas the acquired properties are situated in panchayath area. It was observed that there exists a vast difference in the market price with respect to properties situated in the municipal areas. Exts.A1 to A4 are Sale Deeds executed based on negotiated purchases made by the requisitioning authority itself viz; KINFRA, for the very same purpose of establishment of the Airport. Considering the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the court below found that, Exts.A1 to A4 can be relied on for fixing land value of the acquired properties, as they are similar in nature and similarly situated. It was found that the acquired properties in those cases are situated in important residential areas, having proximity to various industrial, commercial and educational establishments. Therefore the land value in both the said cases were enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per cent. With respect to valuation of the building situated in the acquired property in L.A.R.No.173/2011, the reference court gave 50% enhancement finding it as just and reasonable compensation. Accordingly, the references were answered by holding that the claimants in those cases are entitled for land value at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per cent along with all statutory benefits.

(3.) In all the appeals filed by the State, it is contended that the reliance placed by the reference court on Exts.A1 to A4 are not sustainable. It is mainly contended that Exts.A1 to A4 are post notification documents, which cannot be relied upon for fixing the market value prevailed as on the date of acquisition. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State had placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Tahasildar (L.A) v. Muraleekrishnan [2009 (4) KerLT 320] to which one among us (Justice C.K. Abdul Rehim) is a party. It is held therein that, as far as possible the reference courts shall not place any reliance on a post notification document in order to fix the land value. It is further held that, where there is absolutely no other reliable evidence available, post notification documents executed within a reasonable period on 4 to 5 years can be considered as basis, provided a percentage wise deduction in the price for each year has to be calculated. Further contention of the learned Government Pleader is that, the reference court had failed to appreciate Exts.R1 and R2 basic documents relied on by the LAO and to compare the properties covered therein with the acquired properties. It was also contended that, even though the acquired properties under LAR Nos. 164/2011 and 173/2011 were included by the LAO in different categories, the reference court had erroneously awarded the same rate of land value in both the cases.