BY AD vs THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 C.O.NO.52 OF 2018 ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

09.09.2016 IN LAR NO.3 OF 2011 OF PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOLLAM CROSS OBJECTOR/1ST RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR: STATE OF KERALA REPESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR: 1 2 N.BABU S/O.NARAYANAN, KUZHIKKA THEKKAKKARA KOTTAKKAKOM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT (FROM THEKKATHIL VEEDU KULANGARABHAGAM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE) PIN 691583 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695010 BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P., R1 P.M.JOHNY, SC, R2 THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..269/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LA.APP. NO.269 OF 2017 3 CO NO. 52 OF 2018 JUDGMENT Dated this the 02nd day of April, 2025 [LA.App.No.269/2017 & C.O.No.52/2018] This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2016 in LAR No. 3 of 2011 of the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kollam. Appellant was the claimant in the LAR. A Cross Objection numbered as C.O. No. 52 of 2018 has been filed by the State from the same judgment and decree. Both the LAA and C.O. are considered and disposed of together.

2. The Kerala Water Authority acquired 08.70 Ares of land owned by the claimant comprised in Re.Sy Nos. 395/4, 11, 12, and 17 of Chavara Village in Karunagappally Taluk to implement a water supply scheme. The notification under Section 4 (1) was published in the Official Gazette on 31.10.2002. By the award dated

25.10.2003, an extent of 7.9 Ares of land owned by the claimant was acquired by paying compensation @ Rs.14,472/- per Are in respect of properties in Sy.Nos 395/4,11 and 17 and Rs.16,612/- per LA.APP. NO.269 OF 2017 4 CO NO. 52 OF 2018 Are in respect of properties having an extent of 0.80 Ares in Sy. No.395/12. Possession of the land was taken on 03.07.2004. A total compensation of Rs.1,99,058/- had been awarded by the LAO. The claimant received the amount under protest and moved an application for reference. In the LAR before the Sub Court, the claimant sought an enhancement of land value to Rs.2,00,000/- per cent. Compensation for improvements at Rs.50,000/- as well as for injurious affection were also sought. The Sub-Court in the reference refixed the land value @ Rs.28,990/- per Are. Aggrieved by the same, seeking further enhancement, the claimant has filed this LAA.

3. Heard Sri. Pratheesh P., Advocate for the appellant, Smt. Rekha C.Nair learned Government Pleader for 1st respondent and Sri.P.M. Johny, Advocate, for the 2nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Sub-Court overlooked Exts.A1 to A5 produced by the claimant. The property covered vide Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds were similar in nature to the acquired land and the land value therein ought to have been adopted. In Exts.A1 and A2, the land value originally arrived at was Rs.15,525/- per cent, which was later enhanced after LA.APP. NO.269 OF 2017 5 CO NO. 52 OF 2018 negotiation between the parties out of court and was fixed at Rs.31,050/- per cent. The acquired property is just 400 meters from the National High Way. The LAO had adopted the land value of a property covered by the sale deed dated 16.11.2000. The said property is situated 2 Kms. away from the acquired property. The court below granted a meagre 7% enhancement overlooking the fact that Section 4(1) notification with respect to acquired property was two years subsequent to the execution of the said sale deed. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Jage Ram (dead) through LRs v. Union of India and another [2017 KHC 6392] and it is contended that compensation can be determined by adding 15% of the value of the sale consideration per year keeping in mind the escalation in price of the lands day by day. The Sub Court erred in granting only 7% escalation. As regards the value of improvements too, the compensation awarded by the reference court is inadequate and abysmally low. Injurious affection to the property also ought to have been noted by the reference court.

5. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader LA.APP. NO.269 OF 2017 6 CO NO. 52 OF 2018 reiterated the contentions put forth in the C.O. and submitted that the reference court had without any basis enhanced the land value based on a document bearing No.5492 /2000 dated 16.11.2000, which had been considered by the LAO and found to be not similar to the acquired land. The land value in the said document is much higher than the market value of similar land in the locality. The property covered by the said document is situated 2 Km. away from the acquired land and was of superior nature to the acquired land. The learned Senior Government Pleader thus sought to set aside the judgment and decree.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records. It is noted that of Exts. A1 to A5 marked by the claimant, Exts. A1 and A2 relate to properties purchased by Indian Rare Earths Ltd. which is a Public Sector Undertaking. The land value with respect to the property covered by the said documents is seen to be Rs.31,050/- per cent. Two reasons were stated by the reference court to discard Ext. A1 and A2 viz., the relevant properties were purchased by way of out-of-court settlement and that the claimant had not taken steps to identify the said properties. LA.APP. NO.269 OF 2017 7 CO NO. 52 OF 2018

7. The reference court then proceeded to rely on as exemplar, a property shown as item No.6 in Ext.R3 general note to award comprised in Sy.No.391/22 and covered by sale deed No.5492/00 dated 16.11.2000. The said reliance is assailed by the claimant stating that the said property is not a comparable property as the acquired property is just 400 meters from the National High Way. The said sale deed is of the year 2000 whereas the notification is dated 31.10.2002. There is around 2 year difference between the same. Overlooking the dictum in Jage Ram (supra) the reference court granted only 7% enhancement to the land value taking note of the lag of one year. The same ought to have been 15% per year.

8. It is noted that Exts.A1 and A2 relate to properties purchased by Indian Rare Earths Ltd., a PSU. The reason stated for not relying on the said document is that IRE purchased the same after negotiation and an out of court settlement. The other reason stated for not relying on Exts.A1 and A2 concern the alleged non- identification of the said properties by the Advocate Commissioner. Exts.X1 and X1 (a) are the mahazar and the commission report respectively. It is true that there has been no effort to identify the LA.APP. NO.269 OF 2017 8 CO NO. 52 OF 2018 relevant property so as to afford a comparison of the same with acquired land. The discarding of Exts.A1 and A2 by the Sub Court cannot be termed as improper or erroneous.

9. The reliance on Ext.R3 regarding the property situated in Sy.No.391/22 and covered by sale deed No.5492/00 dated

16.11.2000 is correct and valid. The said property is the suitable exemplar and was validly relied on by the reference court. However, the reference court erred in limiting the per-year enhancement to 7% overlooking the dictum in Jage Ram (supra). The said error requires amendment. The contention in the C.O. that the reference court had without any basis enhanced the land value based on a document bearing No.5492/2000 dated 16.11.2000 which had been considered by the LAO and found to be not similar to the acquired land is unsustainable in the light of the facts and circumstances discernible in evidence. Following the dictum in Jage Ram (supra) and taking note of the fact that sale deed No. 5492/00 is dated 16.11.2000 and the notification under Section 4 (1) was published in the Official Gazette on 31.10.2002, the claimant is entitled to 30% increase in the land value @15% per year for two LA.APP. NO.269 OF 2017 9 CO NO. 52 OF 2018 years.

10. In view of the above, this LAA is thus allowed re-fixing the land value at Rs.35,220.90/- per Are (Rs.27,093/- + 30% of Rs.27,093/-). The appellant/claimant shall be entitled to compensation at the said rate commensurate to the extent of land acquired from him. He shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits including the interest along with proportionate cost. The judgment and decree dated 09.09.2016 in LAR No.3 of 2011 of the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kollam, shall stand modified to the said extent. It is noted that there has been a filing delay of 57 days and this Court had vide order dated 14.07.2017 in C.M.Appl.No.390 of 2017 condoned the delay. It is noted that the delay occasioned in filing the LAA is only 57 days which is not substantial. Hence no deduction in interest and statutory benefits need to be made from the amounts awarded to the appellant/claimant. The cross-objection filed by the State is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE SYAM KUMAR V. M.