The court emphasized the necessity for adherence to statutory procedures in determining compensation under the Act, allowing claimants to present additional evidence for enhanced compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

1. These appeals arise out of the judgments of the reference court answering the references under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Act 30 of 2013] in respect of acquisition of lands for widening of Karamana-Kaliyikkavila National Highway in Thiruvananthapuram District. The State has come up in L.A.App.Nos.480, 481, 482, 488, 489, 490, 495, 498, 503, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 513, 517, 521, 523, 525, 526, 527, 530, 533, 534, 535, 537, 538, 539, 545, 556, 566 and 577 of 2022 aggrieved by the judgments of the Additional District Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram in granting enhancement of compensation to various land owners. The land owners, a few among those who had preferred the claim, have come up in L.A.App.Nos.232, 233 of 2021, 369, 430, 512, 514, 588, 594, 595, 609, 610 of 2022, 28, 52 of 2023 and 18 of 2024, dissatisfied with the grant of compensation by the reference court.

2. We shall consider the appeals preferred by the State Government, at first. The decision of ours in the appeals preferred by the State would have a bearing on the appeals preferred by the claimants.

3. A total extent of 1.1087 Hectares of land situated in the village of Pallichal in the Taluk of Neyyattinkara and Kalliyoor in the Taluk of Thiruvananthapuram was the subject matter of Section 4(1) notification on three different dates. The State of Kerala had notified the land for acquisition in four Reaches. The land acquisition officer scrutinised more than 500 documents and then took 50% of the said documents for the purpose of determining the market value in terms of the provisions contained under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Act 30 of 2013]. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed for the land covering different stretches, the claimants sought reference under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013 before the Additional District Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. In certain cases, independent evidence was produced by the claimants to substantiate their respective claims for enhancement. The reference court, however, without going into the respective contentions of the parties, took the respective market values fixed by the land acquisition officer in individual cases and applied a multiplier of 2.5 to 3 to arrive at the final market value. The State contends before us that the reference court could not have adopted such a method which is unknown to the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. Since the land acquisition officer had rightly applied the procedure prescribed under Section 26 of Act 30 of 2013, the reference court ought not to have ignored the said method and adopted a method completely alien to the provisions of the Act.

4. On the other hand, the claimants before us would contend that the reference court also was not justified in applying the multiplier because they are entitled to more than what was awarded by the reference court. Therefore, it is the specific case of the claimants that in the absence of appreciation of independent evidence produced by them before the authority, the entire exercise undertaken by the reference court falls short of judicial propriety,

5. We have considered the rival contentions raised across the bar.

6. In the nature of the reasoning that we propose to give in this judgment, we deem it appropriate not to delve deep into the facts of each case. The challenge on behalf of the State regarding the findings of the reference court is mainly based on the adoption of a procedure, which is completely alien to the provisions of the Act. The reference court, in some cases, had adopted the value fixed by the District Level Purchase Committee for the purpose of enhancement of the compensation. We find that the said procedure cannot be sustained. Section 26 of the Act specifically delineates the procedure to be followed while deter