Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, EASWARAN S., JJ.
George Pothan S/o Late P.G. George - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
LA. APP. No. 268 of 2019
Decided On : 02-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. BIJU ABRAHAM SRI.B.G.BHASKAR
For the Respondent: BY ADV.SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 ADV P.U.SHAILAJAN, SC FOR R2
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that severance compensation is justified when land acquisition adversely affects remaining property, and market value should be determined using available exemplars and guesstimation principles.
Headnote:
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) and Section 18 - Acquisition of land for industrial estate - Market value determination - The reference court enhanced the market value of the land acquired from Rs.2,54,31,752/- to Rs.12,140/- per cent, rejecting the belting system adopted by the land acquisition officer and allowing severance compensation of 30% for the remaining land. (Paras 2 , 4 , 38 )
(B) Severance Compensation - The court held that severance compensation is warranted when the acquisition injuriously affects the remaining land, and the claimant successfully proved the impact of the acquisition on the remaining land. (Paras 34 , 38 )
(C) Maintainability of Appeal - The court ruled that the State's appeal against the enhancement of compensation was maintainable as the primary liability to pay compensation lies with the State. (Paras 10 , 11 )
(D) Guesstimation Principle - The court applied the principle of guesstimation to determine the market value in the absence of direct evidence, emphasizing the need for a reasonable estimation based on available exemplars. (Paras 22 , 24 ) (E) Evidence Evaluation - The court found that the reference court erred in rejecting certain sale deeds as exemplars, which were relevant for determining market value. (Paras 20 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
Easwaran S., J.
These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2019 in L.A.R No.73/2002 on the files of Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery. Both the 3rd claimant as well as the State have come up in appeal.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals are as follows:
An extent of 20.25 Hectares (50 Acres) of dry land comprised in re-survey No.266/3 of Kalpetta Village of Vythiri Taluk was acquired at the instance of KINFRA for the purpose of establishment of an Industrial Estate. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 27.1.2000. The award was passed on 30.9.2000 and the land acquisition officer awarded a total amount of Rs.2,54,31,752/-. While fixing the land value, the land acquisition officer relied on sale deed No.1296/1999 dated 14.7.1999 (Ext.R4). However, while fixing the market value, the land acquisition officer split the property into two blocks, one having an extent of 1.5535 Hectares, wherein the land value was fixed at Rs.3,013/- per cent, and for the remaining 18.6965 Hectares of land, the land acquisition officer adopted the capitalisation method and awarded a total amount of Rs.1,85,85,251.16 towards the market value for the entire 20.25 Hectares.
3. Aggrieved by the award passed by the land acquisition officer, the claimants preferred an application under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stating that the land acquisition officer ought to have adopted a comparative sales method. In support of his claim, Exts.A1 to A5 documents were produced and CW1 to CW4 were examined. The respondent/State, on the other hand, produced Exts.R1 to R14 documents and examined RW1 in support of their claim. The claimants also sought compensation under the head severance and injurious affection for the remaining 67.48 Acres of land in possession since a check dam, which was constructed inside the 50 Acres of land acquired, was also taken over in the acquisition proceedings.
4. The reference court on appreciation of evidence found that the market value fixed by the land acquisition officer is dismally low and thus proceeded to enhance the market value of the land acquired. However, the reference court rejected the contention of the claimants that the land acquisition officer could not have split the property into two by adopting the belting system. Discarding the evidence produced by the claimants, the reference court proceeded to grant compensation towards severance and injurious affection at the rate of Rs.500/- per cent for the remaining extent. Aggrieved by the insufficiency in the grant of compensation, the 3rd claimant has approached this Court in L.A.App.No.268/2019, while the State has come up in L.A.App.No.23/2021 aggrieved by the enhancement granted by the reference court in the market value.
5. Heard Sri.B.G.Bhasker, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/3rd claimant and Smt.N.Sudha Devi, the learned Special Government Pleader (LA) appearing for the State and Sri.P.U.Shailajan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the requisitioning authority, KINFRA.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant/claimant
6. Sri.B.G.Bhaskar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/3rd claimant raised the following submissions:
(a) The reference court failed to appreciate the true evidentiary value of Exts.A1, A3 and A4 sale deeds, which were produced as exemplars. The properties covered under Exts.A1, A3 and A4, though paddy land, were sold to Kalpetta Municipality, which had expended considerably in order to reclaim the land for the purpose of construction of an indoor stadium. At the time of the trial of the reference, the claimants had substantiated the fact that nearly Rs.9 Lakhs was expended by the Municipality for the purpose of reclamation, but however, during the pendency of the appeal, in response to a query under the Right to Information Act, the appellant received an intimation that the total amount expended by the Municipality was Rs.43,52,752.28 over an extent of
