IMPORTANT POINT
The court enhanced the land value in acquisition cases to Rs.50,000/- per cent, ensuring parity with previous judgments and upholding claimants' rights under eminent domain.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. These Land Acquisition Appeals preferred by the State and the claimants assail the judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery in L.A.R. Nos. 40/2012, 42/2012, 125/2012 and 166/2012. The acquisition in question was of lands in Pazhassi Village in Thalassery Taluk for the upgradation of the Thalassery-Valuvupara Road.

The acquisition proceedings:

2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] was issued on 29.10.2005 and the award of the Land Acquisition Officer [LAO] was passed on 17.10.2008. Possession of the land and buildings thereon were taken on various dates between October, 2008 and April, 2009. The LAO awarded Rs.12,607/- per cent towards market value of the land in the area and various amounts towards value of the buildings situated thereon, by estimating the same using the PWD Schedule of Rates, 2004. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants received the awarded amounts under protest and sought reference of the issue of enhancement of compensation to the reference court under Section 18 of the Act.

Reference under Section 18 of the Act:

3. Before the reference court, the claimants produced two documents-Ext.A3 Sale Deed No. 3050/2008 dated 22.09.2008 of SRO, Mattanur and Ext.A4 Sale Deed No. 1684/2005 dated 25.06.2005 of SRO Mattanur as sale exemplars of similar properties in the area. They contended that the basic document relied upon by the LAO was not produced before the reference court and, in its absence, the finding of the LAO regarding market value of the acquired lands could not be sustained. They also relied on Ext.X1 report of the Advocate Commissioner. In support of their claim for enhancement of value of the buildings, however, no reliable evidence was adduced before the reference court save for the report of an Advocate Commissioner in an Original Suit [O.S. No. 361/2010] filed in 2010 by one of the claimants, the details of which, and the relevance of which to the issue referred are not entirely clear.

4. The reference court, on a consideration of Exts.A3 and A4 sale exemplars found that Ext.A3 evidenced a post notification transaction whereas Ext.A4 evidenced a more proximate transaction prior to the notification. It, however, relied on both the sale exemplars and fixed the land value @ Rs.35,000/- per cent. As for the value of buildings, presumably because of non-availability of reliable evidence to sustain an enhancement, it did not grant any enhancement.

The appeals before us:

5. In the appeals before us, while the State impugns the finding of the reference court enhancing the market value of the land from Rs.12,607/- per cent to Rs.35,000/- per cent, the claimants seek a further enhancement of the value of the land and the buildings thereon.

6. We have heard Sri. Cibi Thomas, the learned counsel for the claimants and Sri. T.K. Shajahan, the learned senior Government Pleader on behalf of the State.

Discussion & Findings:

7. As far as the appeals preferred by the State are concerned, we find that a connected appeal preferred by the State [L.A.A. No. 235/2020], against the common order of the reference court that is impugned in these appeals, was dismissed by another Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.10.2024. While dismissing the said appeal, the Bench had placed reliance on a judgment dated 09.01.2019 of another Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A. No. 249/2014, pertaining to the same notification as in the present appeals, where the Bench had dismissed a State appeal by finding that it had not challenged the finding of the reference court fixing the land value @ Rs.50,000/- per cent but had chosen merely to contest the value fixed for the buildings thereon. Since the lands in all the above referred cases are covered by the same notification, and are in close proximity to each other within the same village, we are of the view that the requirement of ensuring parity i