Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 62056
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, SHIRCY V., JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
GEORGE C.I. – Respondent
LA.App./71/2015
SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN, SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM
The court affirmed that acquired land compensation must reflect proper categorization and accessibility, influencing the fixed rates awarded to the claimants.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4(1), 23(1A), 23(2), 28 - The court relied on the previous categorization of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, affirming revised compensation values based on the classification and accessibility to tar roads.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a common judgment regarding land acquisition for the INFOPARK development. The properties had been previously categorized, leading to disputes over the classification and compensation rates among acquired lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the classification of properties into categories was crucial in determining compensation rates and upheld the previous court decision's methodology for fixing land values based on accessibility and type of land.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the categorization of the acquired properties, accessibility to roads, and disputes over the extent of the acquired land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that properties under the same ownership, classified similarly, and showing consistent access to roads should receive uniform compensation rates, emphasizing the interconnectedness of ownership and land characteristics.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and allowed cross objections to adjust land compensation rates based on previous judgments.
JUDGMENT
C.K. Abdul Rehim J.
All the three land acquisition appeals as well as the cross objections arise out of a common judgment of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor in L.A.R.Nos.71/11, 72/2011 and 73/2011, dated 26.8.2014. The acquisition in question was for 'IInd Phase Development' of INFOPARK, Kakkanad”. The date of publication of the Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was on 20.9.2007. With respect to the same acquisition, this court had decided a batch of cases through the judgment in L.A.A.No.73/2014 and connected cases, on 27.2.2018. Through the said judgment this court had re-categorised the properties involved in the acquisition into four basic categories with sub classifications in each categories based on accessibility to tar road, mud road etc. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants, the Standing Counsel appearing for the requisitioning authority and counsel appearing for the cross objectors/claimants have conceded that the properties covered under the said common judgment were also acquired through the very same notification issued under section 4(1). It is also conceded that the acquired land in these cases are situated in similar nature with that of the properties covered under the above said common judgment. Therefore the categorisation of the properties in these cases can be decided on the basis of the findings contained in the above said judgment. This court had already re-fixed the land value with respect to all the categories by giving enhancement from the land value fixed by the reference court. It is conceded by learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants that no better exemplar than what was considered in the said judgment is available. Therefore it is conceded that the land value of the acquired properties in these cases can be fixed based on the common judgment of this court referred above.
2 Now we will consider the disputes with respect to categorisation of the properties and with respect to the extent of land in each of the cases, and shall proceed to fix the land value in accordance with the findings, relying on the judgment dated 27.2.2018 in L.A.A.No.73/2014 and connected cases.
3 The Land Acquisition OfÏcer (LAO) had included the properties covered under L.A.R.Nos.71/2011 and 72/2011 in the 1st category which is described as dry land having access to tar road and fixed the land value at Rs.3,21,569/- per Are. The reference court had allowed enhancement and refixed the land value at Rs.4,84,482/-per Are. In the judgment of this court dated 27.2.2018 in L.A.A.No.73/2014 and connected cases, this court had included the property remained as dry land with access to tar road in category No. I(a) and refixed the land value at Rs.6,56,263/- per Are. Since classification of the acquired properties in these two cases is as dry land having access to tar road, we are of the opinion that the land value fixed by this court for category No.I(a) can be awarded in these cases. Therefore, it is held that the appeals filed by the State, L.A.A.Nos.71/2015 and
89/2015 are liable to be dismissed. The cross objections, C.O.Nos.28/18 and 22/2018 are liable to be allowed to the extent as mentioned above. Hence those cross objections are allowed to the extent of refixing the land value of the acquired properties at the rate of Rs.6,56,263/- per Are. 4 With respect to L.A.R.No.73/2011, from which L.A.A.No.109/2015 and C.O.No.42/2018 arose, there exists a dispute with respect to the extent of the land acquired, as well as with respect to the categorisation. The LAO had included the property in category No.14, which is described as paddy field having access to any road. The claimants have challenged the categorisation before the reference court on two grounds. First contention was that the property is not a paddy field and is lying as high level wet land. The second contention was that the property in question was having access to tar road. In Ext.A19 mahazar prepared by the
