Compensation for land acquisition must be just and proportionate, with adherence to procedural requirements ensuring property rights are respected.

J U D G M E N T

[LA.App. Nos.230/2020, 72/2021, 31/2021, 140/2021, 244/2020, 4/2021, 3/2021, 2/2021, 21/2021]

Easwaran S., J.

These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 6.2.2020 rendered by the II Additional District Court, Kollam in various references arising under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'Act 30 of 2013').

2. The acquisition relates to an extent of 00.4010, 00.0511, 004388, 00.4410, 00.3260, 00.3915, 00.4926, 00.1012 and 0.2365 hectares of land, respectively, situated in Vadakkevila village of Kollam Taluk for the purpose of establishment of water supply and treatment plant at Vadakkevila village, Kollam. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 1.10.2013 under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, due to some unexplained reasons, the award was passed only after coming into force of Act 30 of 2013. The award was passed on 27.9.2017. The land acquisition officer categorized the land into two categories and fixed an amount of Rs.1,51,111/- for category no.1 and Rs.2,84,550/- for category No.2. The land acquisition officer relied on five documents each for both categories and accordingly took average of the five documents and reached the aforementioned value.

3. Before the reference court, the claimants contended that the value fixed by the land acquisition officer is meagre and that they are entitled for suitable enhancement. Exts.A1 to A5 documents were produced. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the State. The reference court considered Ext.A2 sale deed dated 11.9.2013 and fixed the land value at Rs.5,80,000/- per Are uniformly, thus taking away the belting system adopted by the land acquisition officer. Aggrieved by the common judgment and decree of the reference court, the State has preferred these appeals.

4. Heard Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, and Sri.M.Kiranlal, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the State raised twofold contentions; (a) before the reference court, the requisitioning authority was not made a party and (b) the reference court had adopted a procedure which is not known to the new regime of land acquisition, i.e. Act 30 of 2013. By referring to Section 26 of Act 30 of 2013, the learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the market value has to be arrived at by taking average of the market value shown in the sale deeds executed in the near vicinity.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence adduced by the State, the State cannot be cared to contend before this Court that the procedure adopted by the reference court was improper.

7. To support the first contention, the learned Senior Government Pleader relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs and Others [ (2011) 2 SCC 54 ]. A reading of the decision of the Supreme Court shows that the entitlement of the local authority or the company for which the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State is required to be put on notice to appear and adduce evidence and that the said requirement has to be read as implicit under the provisions. We have absolutely no dispute regarding the proposition canvassed by the Sta