Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14153
2025 KER 36206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
R.Dhanapalan, S/o.S.M.Ramaswami - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
LA.App. No. 51 of 2016
Decided on : 26-05-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : S.K.ADHITHYAN, BHAVYA BINU(K/1272/2021)
For the Respondent : SMT.REKHA C NAIR-SR.GP
S.K.ADHITHYAN BHAVYA BINU(K/1272/2021), SMT.REKHA C NAIR-SR.GP
The court emphasized the necessity of proper evidence and valuation methods in determining compensation for land acquisition, awarding additional compensation for building value based on credible evidence.
Headnote:
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) and Section 18 - Land acquisition for road widening - Dispute over extent of land acquired and compensation awarded - Reference Court awarded compensation based on prior judgment, but denied additional compensation for building value - Court found only 0.11 Ares acquired, not 0.30 Ares as claimed - Additional compensation of Rs.58,177/- awarded for building value. (Paras 1, 2, 8, 10)
(B) Evidence - Valuation Reports - The court emphasized the necessity of proper valuation methods and evidence to support claims for compensation, rejecting unsupported claims. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The claimant's land was acquired for road widening, with a dispute over the extent of land taken and the compensation awarded. The Reference Court awarded compensation for 0.11 Ares, while the claimant contended that 0.30 Ares was acquired.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Reference Court's finding of 0.11 Ares acquired but awarded additional compensation for the building value based on the evidence presented.
Issues: The main issues were the extent of land acquired and the appropriate compensation for the building value.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented did not support the claim for 0.30 Ares, and emphasized the need for proper valuation methods in determining compensation.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, granting additional compensation of Rs.58,177/-.
JUDGMENT :
1. The claimant is the appellant. The land belonging to the claimant was acquired as per Section 4 (1) Notification dated 30/01/2008 under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for widening of road. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, only 0.11 ares was acquired from the claimant. According to the claimant 0.30 ares was acquired from him. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award granting compensation for 0.11 ares and the building therein fixing land value @ Rs.4,75,248/- per Are building value at Rs.58,177/- .
2. The claimant sought reference under Section 18 with respect to the extent of land and the compensation. The Reference Court awarded compensation fixing land value @ Rs.25,30,000/- per Are, relying on Ext.A1 judgment of the same Court in L.A.R. No.200/2009. The Reference Court found that there is no evidence to hold that 0.30 Ares was acquired from the claimant. Thus the claim of the claimant for compensation for 0.19 Ares of land was denied. Though the claimant produced Ext.A2 Commission Report which includes the Valuation of the building and examined AW2/Engineer who prepared the Valuation Report, the Reference Court refused to rely on the same and did not award any additional compensation for the building value. As per Ext.A2, the value of the building is assessed at Rs.16,02,600/- by AW2.
3. The appeal is filed against refusal to grant compensation for 0.19 Ares and enhancement for the building value.
4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. S.K.Adityan and the learned Sr. Government Pleader Smt.Rekha C. Nair.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.A2(a) would prove that 0.30 Ares was taken possession from the claimant. The Reference Court acted illegally in grating compensation for the entire 0.30 ares of land. In view of Ext.A2 Valuation Report proved by AW2/Chartered Engineer, the Reference Court ought to have granted building value relying on the same. AW2 specifically deposed that the said building was inspected before demolition. The evidence of AW2 was not effectively challenged by the respondents.
6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. Government Pleader contended that more than 0.11 ares was taken possession from the claimant. Ext.A2(a) plan shows 0.30 ares, but that does not mean the said extent was taken possession from the claimant. Ext.A2 Valuation Report could not be relied fixing the building value. The rate which is applied by the Engineer is not stated. It is not clear whether the building is situated in 0.11 Ares of land acquired from the claimant or 0.30 Ares of land which is claimed to have acquired from the claimant. The age of the building is not correctly assessed. The depreciation was not deducted. It is seen that the said report was obtained in another suit, O.S. No.1012/2009. The said Report could not be taken for evidence in the present reference.
7. I have considered the rival contentions.
8. The first question to be considered in this appeal is the extent of land acquired from the claimant. The acquisition records would show that only 0.11 Ares of land was acquired from the claimant. There is nothing on record other than Ext.A2(a) plan to show the extent is 0.30 Ares. Relying on Ext.A2(a) plan, it could not be said that the extend covered by the said Plan was taken into possession by the respondents. Hence, the Reference Court was right in holding that only 0.11 Ares of land was acquired and taken possession from the claimant. It is not a case that 0.30 Ares was taken possession by the respondents and only 0.11 Ares was valued by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the absence of any evidence regarding the taking of possession of the land in excess of 0.11 land, the claim of the appellant that excess land was taken from the possession of appellant could not be found in his favour.
9. In order to prove the value of the building, the claimant relies on Ext.A2 Valuation Report and the evidence of AW2. On going through Ext.A2, it is seen that AW2 Chartered E
