Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39884
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, Easwaran S., JJ
CHANDRALAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
LA.App. 327/2022
P.HARIDAS P.C.SHIJIN, SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN – SR. GP FOR R1
Compensation for acquired land must reflect its potential value, rejecting belting systems where inappropriate.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Section 4(1) - Compensation for acquired land - The appeal sought enhancement of compensation for land acquired for railway track construction. The Reference Court awarded compensation at Rs.5,32,000/- per Are, while the appellant claimed higher due to potential land value and severance issues. The court modified the compensation to Rs.6,22,615/- per Are, emphasizing the land's higher potential value and rejecting the belting system for this case. (Paras 1, 2, 5, 6)
(B) Severance - The court found no basis for the severance argument, determining that the abutting platform would enhance the land's value. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's land was categorized by the Land Acquisition Officer with compensation awarded based on this categorization. The appellant argued for a higher compensation based on the land's location and potential.
Findings of Court:
The court increased the compensation based on the land's potential and rejected the belting system as inapplicable.
Issues: The main issues included the appropriate categorization of the land and the validity of the severance argument.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the land's potential warranted a higher compensation than awarded, and the belting system was not applicable in this case.
Result: Appeal stands disposed off by modifying the award of the Reference Court.
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2017 deciding LAR No.88/2012 filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as Reference Court for the purpose of doubling of Chengannur – Chingavanam Railway track. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act was caused on 18.07.2009. Land under acquisition of the appellant is 12 Ares and remaining land left out is 11 Ares. Land Acquisition Officer by relying upon the basic document, categorised the land into five(5) categories and the land of the appellant was brought under category No.2 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,05,364/- (Rupees one lakh five thousand three hundred sixty four only) per Are. Reference Court, in claim seeking enhancement, on the basis of the evidence by ignoring Exts.A1 to A4 assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,32,000/- (Rupees five lakhs thirty two thousand only) per Are.
2. Sri.P.Haridas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that as per the report of Advocate Commissioner as well as sketch plan, the land of the appellant is surrounded by two kind of roads, PWD and Municipal roads therefore, has more potential in fetching a higher price. The price of land assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer, even if this Court does not accept the plea of the State with regard to the belting system, is liable to be increased higher than the amount of compensation granted for Category No.1. It was further contended that the left out land as per the site plan cannot be also used and therefore, there is an abdication by the Reference Court in not awarding the compensation for diminution of the land because in the major portion of the land left out there is a barricaded platform.
3. On the other hand, Sri.T.K.Shajahan, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of State submitted that the sale deeds attempted to be relied upon during the course of hearing are one year post notification therefore, cannot be looked into. No document has been placed record to show close proximity and the location for seeking higher amount of compensation than the one awarded by the Land Acquisition Reference Court. Even otherwise, there was no such argument or ground taken before the Reference Court for change of category. As far as the severance is concerned, appellant is entitled to use the area, as per the site plan, for commercial purposes therefore, there cannot be any determination of compensation on the ground of severance.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
5. Against the notification aforementioned we have already dismissed appeals of the State but considering the fact that the land of the appellant has more potential, the Reference Court ought to have awarded the compensation by treating the land as category No.1 ie., Rs.6,22,615/- (Rupees Six lakhs twenty two thousand six hundred fifteen only). Belting system is impermissible in view of the judgment ofBesco Limited v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC Online SC 1071] as well as Bijender and Others v. State of Haryana and Another [ (2018) 11 SCC 180 ]. We would be relying our observation by referring to the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bijender and Others (supra). The same reads as under:
“31) Coming first to the question as to whether the Courts below were justified in applying the "Belting System” for determining the market rates of the acquired land in question?
32) We are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the nature, extent, size, surrounding and location of the acquired land, the Courts below were justified in applying Belting System for determining the market rate of the acquired land.
33) One cannot dispute that the Belting System is a judicially accepted method for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. It is applied in appropriate cases when different parc
