KARANAKKODAM, THAMMANAM-PULLEPPADY ROAD, vs SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN

BY ADVS. SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN VARGHESE K.PAUL KASHMEERA ASHRAF(K/000844/2021) SMT.SNEHA DIVAKARAN P.(K/001203/2021) SAFEER BAWA A.S.(K/002552/2022) ANAMIKA SASIKUMAR(K/00788/2023) JULLY SIJU(K/002916/2024) ATHEESHA M.V.(K/2125/2022) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A) RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-16. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION,SOUTHERN RAILWAY,ERNAKULAM-682016. LA.APP.NO.632/2015 2 BY ADVS. REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R1 KRISHNADAS P. NAIR, SR.CGC, R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LA.APP.NO.632/2015 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025 This Land Acquisition Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2009 in L.A.R. No.375 of 2006 of the IIIrd Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ernakulam. Appellant was the claimant in the said L.A.R. Respondents were the respondents therein.

2. An extent of 1.51 Ares (3.750 cents) of land with structures and improvements in Sy.No.486/2 of Ernakulam Village was acquired for doubling of railway track between Ernakulam- Mulanthuruthy. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 20.06.2005. Possession was taken on 29.03.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O) passed the award on 31.03.2006. The L.A.O. had granted a compensation of Rs.1,91,579/- per Are for the land acquired. In the reference that followed, the court vide judgment dated 29.05.2009 enhanced and fixed the land value at Rs.2,92,318.55 per Are. The said judgment and decree of the reference court are impugned in this appeal by LA.APP.NO.632/2015 4 the claimant.

3. Heard Sri. Jijo Paul Kallookkaran, Advocate for the appellant/claimant, Smt.Rekha C.Nair, learned Senior Government Pleader for R1 and Sri.Krishnadas P.Nair, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for R2.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment mainly on two grounds. Firstly, for discarding Ext.A1 sale deed dated 07.11.1995 registered as document No.5332 of 1995 of SRO, Ernakulam, which was relied on by the claimant to substantiate the land value of the acquired land. The reason stated for not relying on Ext.A1 is that it was of the year 1995, while acquisition of the claimant’s property was in the year 2005. The next reason was that the said property had a building thereon and no clear evidence was available regarding the value of the building. These two reasons stated by the Sub Court for excluding Ext.A1 sale deed, it is submitted by the counsel are factually incorrect and unsustainable. To buttress this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment dated 27.07.2011 rendered a Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.No.393 of 2011 arising from L.A.R.No.101 of 2009 of LA.APP.NO.632/2015 5 II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, wherein the very same Ext.A1 document viz., the sale deed dated 07.11.1995 registered as document No.5332 of 1995 had been relied on by this Court and a remand was ordered for fresh consideration based on the same. Ext.A1 had been produced as Ext.A3 in the said L.A.R. albeit in connection with another acquisition and under another notification. This Court had, after a close appraisal of the said document, concluded that there was no building in the said property and the contrary conclusion arrived at by the Sub Court was erroneous. The said L.A.A. was remanded back directing the Sub Court to decide the matter afresh keeping in mind the observations made by the Court regarding the relevance and probative value of the same sale deed. It is contended by the learned counsel that the very same error had occurred once again while appreciating Ext.A1 document by the Sub Court. It is hence prayed that the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration following the judgment dated

27.07.2011 of this Court in L.A.A.No.393 of 2011. An additional contention regarding non-consideration of Ext.C1(d) report has also been put forth. There was no legal justification in discarding LA.APP.NO.632/2015 6 Ext.C1(d) Expert Engineers Report determining the market value of the residential building in the property, it is contended. The Sub Court was not right in holding that no data was adduced by expert in his report. Ample and adequate data had been elaborated therein. The said report was simply brushed aside. On this ground too a remand is justified, so as to enable a proper appreciation of the matter.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R1 refuted the contentions put forth and submitted that the L.A.A. does not reveal any ground for interference. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel also made submissions in the same line.

6. I have heard both sides and perused the records. I note that Ext.A1 document had been relied on and considered by this Court in connection with another acquisition proceedings and that it had been found by this Court that no building existed in the said property. The said L.A.R. was remanded back for fresh consideration. In the impugned judgment too, the Sub Court had concluded that a building existed in the property covered by Ext.P1 LA.APP.NO.632/2015 7 sale deed. Further as regards Ext.C1 (d) report, I find that the same is accompanied with detailed descriptions including those regarding the relevant materials used. Hence the conclusion that the expert has not given any sufficient evidence to prove the exact market rate and hence the valuation fixed by him cannot be accepted is incorrect and unsustainable. No examination of the details and description contained in the report is seen made or discussed by the Sub Court. The resoning that the only recourse open to the court is to give a certain percentage of increase over the building value fixed by the awarding officer and the conclusion arrived at that 30% increase is sufficient and adequate lacks legal basis and cannot be sustained.

7. In view of the above, the judgment and decree dated

29.05.2009 in L.A.R.No.375 of 2006 of the III Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ernakulam is set aside. The L.A.R. is remanded back to the reference court for fresh consideration by duly taking note of the directions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 27.07.2011 in L.A.A.No.393 of 2011 arising from L.A.R.No.101 of 2009 of Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. Both LA.APP.NO.632/2015 8 sides shall be given liberty to adduce evidence, if any.

6. The parties shall appear before the reference Court on

01.06.2025. The learned Sub Judge shall give intimation to the Government Pleader regarding posting of the L.A.R. on the above mentioned date. Appellant shall along with a certified copy of this judgment, produce before the Sub Court, a certified copy of the judgment dated 27.07.2011 in L.A.A.No.393 of 2011.

7. In view of the order dated 14.11.2016 of this Court in this L.A.A. while condoning the delay, enhancement, if any, granted after remand, shall not bear interest and other statutory benefits for a period of 2257 days, the same being the period of delay that had been occasioned in filing this L.A.A.

8. The Sub Court shall endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The entire court fee paid on the memorandum of Land Acquisition Appeal shall be refunded to the counsel for the appellant. L.A.A. is disposed of as above. Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE