Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 85541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, Easwaran S., JJ
PANKAJAKSHI AMMA D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, VIJAYAN S/O.PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, CHANDRAN NAIR S/O.RAMAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT) OF BPCL – Respondent
LA.APP. NO. 638 OF 2013 | LA.App..636/2013 | LA.APP. NO. 700 OF 2013 | LA.APP. NO. 836 OF 2013 | LA.APP. NO. 37 OF 2014 | LA.APP. NO. 174 OF 2015 | LA.APP. NO. 176 OF 2015 | LA.APP. NO. 177 OF 2015 | LA.APP. NO. 254 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.S.BABU, SRI.BABU SHANKAR, SRI.K.S.GOPI, SMT.N.SUDHA
For the Respondents: SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR.), SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, SRI.JAI MOHAN, SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA, SMT.ANN MARIA FRANCIS, SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN – SR.GP
The court determined that compensation for acquired land should be assessed based on uniform market value principles, rejecting belting systems in favor of comprehensive evaluations of land characteristics.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1) and relevant case law - Compensation determination - Land owners sought enhancement of compensation after the Reference Court's decision was deemed insufficient based on comparable sales; the court emphasized the impermissibility of using a belting system for disparate land categories - Market value should be assessed uniformly, disregarding inferior access to land - Court modified the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- per Are with statutory benefits. (Paras 2, 6, 11, 12, 13)
(B) Importance of Market Value - Market value should reflect the proper assessment of similarly situated lands, and access considerations must not unjustly undervalue properties. (Paras 5, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appeal involved a dispute over compensation rates for land acquired for the expansion of a refinery, where owners argued that comparables were not adequately considered, resulting in insufficient pricing.
Findings of Court:
The court determined it necessary to revise the compensation to 10 lakh per Are based on a more equitable valuation process without belting practices.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of the compensation awarded to the landowners and the appropriateness of the valuation method applied by the Reference Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that the belting system is not appropriate in all cases and emphasized the need for a consistent valuation based on the market conditions surrounding the land in question, particularly when considering land acquisitions for a unified project rather than piecemeal sales.
Result: Appeals allowed, compensation enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- per Are, with all statutory benefits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land acquisition appeals for compensation enhancement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by claimants and bpcl regarding land valuation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of market value and documents. (Para 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. impact of belting system on compensation assessment. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. modification of compensation rate established. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
[LA.App. Nos.638/2013, 636/2013, 174/2015, 176/2015, 177/2015, 254/2015, 37/2014, 700/2013, 836/2013]
Amit Rawal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of nine(9) appeals preferred by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the order of Reference Court decided on different dates.
2. The State Government on the request of the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited Kerala (BPCL) caused a notification under Section 4 (1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , for acquisition of 14.2176 Hectors of land. Land Acquisition Officer(LAO) by taking into consideration their basic document ie., sale deed bearing No.5970/2007 dated 13.07.2007 divided the land into four(4) categories and assessed the compensation of land of those different categories in the following manner:
3. Dissatisfied with the aforementioned assessment of LAO, land owners sought a reference in respect of Category Nos.II, III and IV. Besides examining Commissioner’s report Ext.C1 and C2 and five(5) witnesses on behalf of the respondent both the beneficiary ie., BPCL and the claimants brought on record the following documents:
4. Learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation of category-II by giving marginal increase to Rs.3,04,720/- (Rupees three lakhs four thousand seven hundred twenty only), Category-III to Rs.2,88,256/- (Two laks eight eight thousand two hundred fifty six only) and Category-IV Rs.2,72,241/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy two thousand two hundred forty one only). It is in that background, the appellants-claimants-land owners are before this Court for seeking enhancement.
5. Learned senior counsel and other counsel representing the claimants in support of their memorandum of appeal raised the following submissions:
I. Learned Reference Court did not consider the market value of similarly situated lands and the documents prod`uced and marked as Exts.A5 to A9, much less, no reasoning has been assigned in not accepting or rejecting the documents.
II. The commissioner’s report rather explained the nature of land referred to in Ext.A9 to be of lower level and inferior quality than the one acquired for.
III. The belting system should not be adopted as land has been acquired for expansion and modernization of BPCL, Kochi refinery, to be used for one purpose and not in piece-meal. No doubt in case the property in piece-meal is sold out it would fetch a lesser price but when sold as a whole would fetch a higher price. The importance of the location and facilities available to the requirement are also the determining factor for assessment of the fair and justiciable compensation. In support of the contention relied upon the judgment in Besco Limited v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC Online SC 1071] as well asBijender and Others v. State of Haryana and Another [(2018) 11 SCC 180] .
6. On the other hand, Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BPCL and learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State submitted that the belting system as per the finding rendered in paragraph No.35 ofBijender and Others (supra) is permissible but always depend upon the nature of land. It has come on record that all the categories of land had a different location and value on account of their location and would not have fetched the same price if sold by the land owners in open market. In support of the contention relied upon the Constitutional Bench judgment of Supreme Court in U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors. v. Rajendra Bahadur Srivastva and Ors. [1995 Supp (4) SCC 76] and Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Brijeshwar Singh Chhal and Another [(1996) 9 SCC 188] wh
