RAJALAKSHMI versus THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KOYILANDY & ANOTHER on 10 April 2023

1. As common question of law and facts arise in these appeals, allthese appeals are decided and disposed of together by this commonjudgment and order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentsand orders dated 30.05.2018/28.05.2018/10.08.2022 passed by the HighCourt of Kerala at Ernakulam in Land Acquisition Appeal No. 359/2017and other allied appeals and cross objections, by which the High Courthas determined and awarded the compensation for the lands acquired atthe rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per cent, the original landowners/claimants havepreferred the present appeals.

3. In all these appeals, the lands in question came to be acquiredfor the purpose of setting up of an IT Park at Kozhikode. Notification/sunder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referredto as the ‘Act’) came to be issued on 21.08.2009. The Land AcquisitionOfficer declared the award and awarded compensation at the rate ofRs. 16,294/- per cent for wet land; Rs.27,807/- per cent for garden landwithout road access; and Rs.45,897/- per cent for garden land havingroad access. However, the Reference Court enhanced the amount ofcompensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- per cent for the garden land adjacent tothe road and Rs.1,75,000/- per cent for the garden land not having theaccess to the road. However, the High Court by the impugned commonjudgment and order has determined and awarded compensation to Rs.1,35,000/- per cent, giving 35% rise to the negotiated price at which theother lands came to be acquired.

3.1 Insofar as Civil Appeal arising from Special Leave PetitionNo. 15698/2021 is concerned, as noted hereinabove, with respect to the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Avery notification dated 21.08.2009, the Land Acquisition Officer awardedcompensation at the rate of Rs.45,897/- per cent. The Reference Courtenhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 3,00,000/- per cent.However, in an appeal preferred by the acquisition body/beneficiary, bythe impugned judgment and order, the High Court has awarded anddetermined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per cent, relyingBupon the common judgment and order dated 28.05.2018, which is thesubject matter of the present appeals as above.

4. Learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of therespective landowners/original claimants have vehemently submitted thatin the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materiallyCerred in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per cent.

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned senior counsel thatthe lands in question were the garden lands and were having the accessto the road and were situated in a prime location and which were nearerto the IT Park and therefore the High Court has material erred inDawarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per cent only.

4.2 It is next submitted that the claimants relied upon the saleexemplar in which the land nearer to the lands acquired came to be soldat Rs. 4,00,000/- per cent. It is submitted that the High Court hasmaterially erred in discarding the same by observing that the priceEmentioned in the sale exemplar is artificial and on the higher side.

4.3 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respectivelandowners/original claimants have further submitted that in any casethe High Court has materially erred in giving only 35% rise to thenegotiated price. It is submitted that merely because the other landownersFaccepted the compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent as they might besatisfied with that compensation, cannot be a ground to take intoconsideration the negotiated price of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent.

4.4 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantshave taken us to the observations made by the Reference Court on theGlocation of the lands acquired.

4.5 Making above submissions, it is prayed to enhance the amountof compensation.

5. While opposing the present appeals, Shri V. Chitambaresh,learned Senior Advocate and Mr. C.K. Sasi, learned counsel appearingH

on behalf of the beneficiary/acquiring body have vehemently submittedthat most of the landowners as such have accepted the negotiatedcompensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. It is submitted that thereforethe High Court has not committed any error in determining thecompensation taking into consideration the negotiated price accepted bymost of the landowners.

5.1 It is submitted that so far as the sale exemplar relied upon onbehalf of the appellants is concerned, it is submitted that as the sameproperty was sold for commercial purpose, by giving cogent reasons theHigh Court has rightly discarded the same. It is submitted that so far asthe other sale exemplars are concerned, they were post-acquisition andtherefore the same are rightly discarded by the High Court.

5.2 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the presentappeals.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugnedcommon judgment and order the High Court has determined thecompensation at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per cent considering thenegotiated price at Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent and giving further 35% rise.It is required to be noted that out of the total acquisition, with respect to145 landowners for 28.89 acres, the requiring authority purchased theland on the basis of negotiations at the sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. Therefore, many landowners accepted the compensation atnegotiated price of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. However, the presentlandowners were not satisfied and therefore at their instance thereferences were made under section 18 of the Act. Therefore, as such,the High Court rightly took into consideration the negotiated price forwhich the other various landowners sold their land for the very projectfor a sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. It is true that thelandowners who are aggrieved by the amount of compensation determinedby the Land Acquisition Officer are not bound by the negotiated priceagreed by the other landowners, however, the same can be said to be arelevant consideration for determining the compensation in the presentcase.

7. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the sale exemplar reliedupon on behalf of the landowners is concerned, by giving cogent reasons, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe High Court has discarded the same by observing that the pricementioned in the said sale exemplar is artificial and exorbitant. It is requiredto be noted that the land with respect to sale exemplar was sold for acommercial purpose, namely, Mall. Therefore, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly discarded thesame. So far as the other sale exemplars are concerned, the same areBpost-acquisition and therefore also the High Court has rightly discardedthe same.

8. From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by theHigh Court, it appears that the High Court has determined and awardedcompensation at Rs. 1,35,000/- per cent by giving 35% rise to theCnegotiated price of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. However, taking intoconsideration the location of the lands; the lands being garden landshaving road access and Thondayad junction is about 2 kilometres awayfrom the acquired land, we are of the opinion that granting 35% rise tothe negotiated price of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent can be said to be on aDlower side. In our view, the claimants/landowners are entitled to justcompensation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the caseand looking to the location of the acquired lands, we are of the opinionthat if 60% rise to the negotiated price is given, the same can be said tobe just compensation and which can be said to be a fair compensation.

E9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all theseappeals succeed in part. The impugned judgment/s and order/s passedby the High Court are hereby modified to the extent awardingcompensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- percent, instead of Rs. 1,35,000/- per cent as awarded by the High Court. Itgoes without saying that the claimants shall be entitled to all the statutoryFbenefits including interest which may be available under the Act, 1894on the enhanced amount of compensation. The acquiring body is herebydirected to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation as above withthe Reference Court within a period of six weeks from today and onsuch deposit the original claimants shall be permitted to withdraw theGsame.

10. The present appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Nocosts.

Divya Pandey

H(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Roopanshi Virang, LCRAs)