Cumulative escalation for land acquisition compensation must be justifiable and adhere to established legal precedents, with defined limits on escalation durations.

JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the State against the judgments passed by the Subordinate Judges' Court, Thodupuzha, in a bunch of Land Acquisition References.

2. Various extents of lands were acquired from the respondents in these appeals for widening Thodupuzha- Ramamangalam road. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 3.3.2010. Later, awards were passed by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Thodupuzha under Section 11 of the Act. The claimants were discontented with the awards passed by the Special Tahsildar and hence they sought references. In the references, the court enhanced the compensation and granted other statutory benefits also. Aggrieved by the judgments passed by the reference court, the State approached this Court by filing appeals. In the appeals, with respect to properties included in category No.1A, this Court held that the fixation of market value by the reference court was not appropriate. Therefore, those matters were remitted for fresh disposal.

3. Thereafter, the reference court considered the remitted references afresh and permitted the parties to adduce fresh evidence. The court, on conclusion of trial, analyzed the evidence adduced and found that there were no reliable exemplars to follow the comparative sales method to fix the value of acquired lands. Though some sale deeds were produced by the respondents in these cases as exemplars, the same were not found reliable by the reference court for various reasons stated in the impugned judgments. Conclusions of the reference court in this regard have not been assailed by the respondents by filing appeals. Since no reliable exemplars were available, the option available to the reference court was to rely on the market value fixed in previous acquisitions. The reference court noticed that in a previous phase of acquisition for the purpose of road development in the same area, this Court in L.A.A.No.177/2010 enhanced the market value as ₹50,000/- per cent. The reference court found that though the properties involved in L.A.A.No.177 of 2010 were situated at some distance, the market value fixed in the said case can be accepted and relied upon for the purpose of determining market value of the properties involved in these cases.

4. The reference court considered various relevant aspects and finally held that escalation at the rate of 15% can be cumulatively granted to the value fixed by this Court in L.A.A.No.177 of 2010. Accordingly, in all these cases cumulative escalation at the rate of 15% was granted for 11 years. The State is aggrieved by the granting of escalation for a period of 11 years at the rate of 15%.

5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in all these cases and respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader confined her submissions to the aspect of granting of escalation for a period of 11 years at the rate of 15%. She submitted that the reference court ought not to have granted escalation for a period of 11 years, as the said method is unsafe. She contended that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ] granting escalation for a period of more than 5 years is unsafe and illegal. She hence submitted that the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside.

7. To the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for respective respondents in these appeals submitted that t