The court affirmed that previous awards in similar land acquisitions can be considered for determining market value under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, ensuring just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

A pivotal question regarding the interpretation of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, ‘Act 30 of 2013’) has arisen for consideration in these appeals. The challenge raised in these appeals pertains to various orders of the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam, answering the references filed under Section 64(1) of the Act 30 of 2013. Since the points raised in these appeals are common, they are being considered together and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. For the sake of brevity, the facts leading to L.A.A. No.51 of 2022 preferred by the State and L.A.A. No.226 of 2020 preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation (both LAAs arise out of the award in L.A.R. No.25 of 2017) will be considered first.

3. Succinctly the facts in brief are as follows:

An extent of 0.27 Ares of land equaling to 0.666 square links was acquired for the purpose of widening the Main Central Road (MC Road, for short) at Muvattupuzha Town. The notification under Section 4(1) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 29.3.2014. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.14,17,803/- per Are and the building value at Rs.95,766/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference under Section 64(1) of the Act 30 of 2013. It is pertinent to mention that along with the claimant, his wife and son also sought reference against their respective awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the very same date in respect of the properties in their possession which were numbered as L.A.R. Nos.26 and 27 of 2017. In the claim statement preferred before the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam, the claimants contended that the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is insufficient and does not reflect the true value of the land. In support of the contentions, the claimants relied on Ext.A1 to A19 documents. The State, on the other hand, produced Exts.B1 to B43 documents. On behalf of the claimants, AW1 to AW3 were examined. On behalf of the State, RW1 to RW5 were examined. The claimants also took out an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection of the land acquired and for the purpose of valuing the building. Ext.C1 to C3(a) were marked as Court Exhibits.

4. Findings of the reference court.

4.1. On consideration of the material evidence before it, the reference court refused to accept Exts.B5, B6, and B7 documents which were not in proximity to the land acquired but accepted Ext.B4 and thereafter proceeded to consider the average market value of the property by taking into consideration the value fixed by the District Collector in respect of a property situated in the proximity of the land acquired as under Ext.A15. The reference court undertook the exercise in view of the mandate contained under Section 26 of Act 30 of 2013 and thus arrived at a land value of Rs.25,26,059.375/- and proceeded to grant enhanced compensation in tune with the extent of property acquired.

4.2. In so far as the claim for compensation on the value of the building is concerned, the reference court found that the claimant did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim for increasing the value of the building but, however, granted 20% escalation on the rates fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer relying on the scheduled rates of the Public Works Department.

5. Aggrieved by the decision of the reference court, the State is on appeal before us primarily contending that the market value arrived at by the reference court is unknown to the procedure prescribed under Section 26 of Act 30 of 2013.

6. The claimants, on the other hand, are in appeal before us by contending that the value fixed by the reference court itself is incorrect and they are entitled to a higher value for the land acquired by the State and also the quantum of compensation towards rehabil