Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40788
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, Easwaran S., JJ
AUGUSTINE KURUVILA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
LA.App. 167/2021
K.J.KURIACHAN, SUNIL JACOB, GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M, K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984), JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526), KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003), PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006), RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008), SMT. RESHMI K.M., SR.GP, SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS, SR.GP
The court ruled that the belting system for land valuation is impermissible, emphasizing uniform compensation for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 28A(3) - Compensation for acquired land - Appeals by claimants against the reference court's restriction on compensation - The court found that the belting system applied by the land acquisition officer was impermissible and infringed the constitutional right to property under Article 300A - The reference court had enhanced compensation for certain lands but denied it for a portion used as a pathway, which was contested by the claimants. (Paras 4, 9, 12, 16)
(B) Constitutional Law - Article 300A - Right to hold property - The court emphasized that the categorization of land for compensation must align with public purpose and cannot be arbitrary. (Paras 12, 16)
(C) Judicial Precedents - The court relied on previous judgments, particularly Sunitha K.E v. State of Kerala, to determine appropriate compensation levels. (Paras 8, 11, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from land acquisition for the expansion of Infopark, with claimants contesting the compensation awarded for their lands classified under different categories. The reference court had enhanced compensation for some lands but not for others, leading to the appeals.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the compensation for all lands should be uniform and set at Rs.2,97,924/- per Are, without categorization.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the belting system and whether the properties were similarly situated for compensation purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the belting system was not applicable and emphasized the right to fair compensation without arbitrary categorization.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
Easwaran S.,J.
This order of ours shall dispose of five land acquisition appeals. The appeals are preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the order of the reference court in restricting the compensation awarded in a reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . All the lands in question were acquired by the State of Kerala for the expansion of Infopark. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 16.1.2006. An award was passed on 17.2.2007.
L.A.App.No.247/2021
2. The facts pertaining to L.A.Appeal No.247/2021 would be dealt at the first instance. The claimant aggrieved by the land value fixed by the land acquisition officer sought reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . By judgment and decree dated 31.7.2018 in L.A.R 67/2014 on the files of the III Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, the reference was answered. Although the reference was answered in favour of the appellant/claimant, the present appeal is limited to the extent of 4.25 Ares of land, which was admittedly used as pathway, which was also acquired for which the same compensation was not granted.
3. The other appeals arise from a reference under Section 28A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . The appellants contend that despite the judgment in L.A.R No.67/2014 dated 31.7.2018, the parity in compensation was not granted by the reference court. The appeals arising out of a reference under (3) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act would be dealt by us later in this judgment.
4. Coming to the facts of L.A.App.No.247/2021, it is pertinent to mention that the amount fixed by the land acquisition officer was Rs.100/- per Are for 4.25 Ares of land comprised in survey No.641/1 and for the balance extent of 11.75 Ares @ Rs.73,200/- per Are. The extent of 11.75 Ares of land was classified as garden land in category No.1 by the land acquisition officer, whereas the extent of 4.25 Ares of land was classified under category No.7 by fixing the land value at Rs.100/- per Are. The reference court in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , enhanced the compensation at 406.61% following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court inSunitha K E. v. State of Kerala & Another [ 2017 (4) KLJ 478 ]. However, the reference court did not grant enhancement for the 4.25 Ares of land and only fixed the land value at Rs.1,19,169.60 per Are. This is the prime consideration in the present appeal.
5. We have heard Sri.K.J.Kuriachan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel assisted by Sri.Chethan Krishna R. appearing for the 2nd respondent – Chief Executive Officer, Infopark and Sri.T.K.Shajahan, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant primarily confined his argument to the belting system followed by the land acquisition officer as well as by the reference court. It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the appellant that an extent of 11.75 Ares of land being included in category No.1 as garden land, no rhyme or reason can be attributed for including the extent of 4.25 Ares of land in the same survey number which is used as a pathway to enter into the larger extent of the land. Still further, it is pointed out that the acquisition being for a single purpose, namely the expansion of Infopark, the categorisation of the land is impermissible. It is thus prayed that the judgment of the reference court be modified and the same compensation as fixed for 11.75 Ares of land, ie @ Rs.2,97,924/- per Are, be awarded for the extent of 4.25 Ares of land as well.
7. On the other hand, Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the question of categorisation cannot be gone into by this Court in an appeal arising out of the judgment and decree in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further pointed out tha
