M.T. Joy & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 8081-95 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4453-4467 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal No. 8096 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8554 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal No. 8097 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11732 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4453-4467 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal No. 8096 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8554 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal No. 8097 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11732 of 1999)
Petitioner: M.T. Joy & Ors.
Respondent: State of Kerala & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 8081-95 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4453-4467 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal No. 8096 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8554 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal No. 8097 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11732 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4453-4467 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal No. 8096 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8554 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal No. 8097 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11732 of 1999)
Judges: V.N. KHARE & ASHOK BHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 27, 2001
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sections 16, 17 – Compensation – Sale of small pieces of lands – Acquisition of large tract of land – Market price – Computation. Held that sale of small pieces of lands do not represent correct market price. They fetch more value than sale of large tract. (Para 3)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sections 16, 17 – Compensation – Claim laid on basis of judgment of High Court in some case – No appeal against that orders – Stand of government that amount involved was petty and appeal filed in all other cases. Held that explanation is reasonable and judgment cannot be made basis for claim in this case. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. A large tract of land situated in Thrikkakara, south village in Kanayannur taluk in the district of Ernakulam was sought to be acquired by State of Kerala for setting up an export processing zone. For that purpose, on 28.1.1985, the government issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said notification was followed by another notification issued under section 6 of the Act. Subsequently on 25.2.1986, the land acquisition officer gave an award in respect of the acquired land. The land acquisition officer categorised the land under various categories. The categories which are relevant for the purpose of these cases are category nos. 3(b) and 4(b). The land acquisition officer offered compensation for category no. 3(b) @ Rs. 4048/- per cent and for category no. 4(b) @ Rs. 4453/- per cent. Aggrieved, the claimants sought reference before the civil court. The reference court enhanced the compensation for the acquired land. For category no. 3(b), the reference court en-hanced compensation to Rs. 8,000/- per cent and for category 4(b) Rs. 8,500/- per cent respectively. Aggrieved, the State of Kerala preferred regular first appeals before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, modified the judgment of the reference court and thereby reduced the enhance compensation and it is against the said judgment of the High Court, the claim-ants have preferred these appeals.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that no evidence having been adduced by the state government in regard to grant of lower rate of compensation for the acquired land, the High Court ought to have given compensation as reflected in exhibits A-3 and A-4 and that the judgment of the High Court modifying the judgment given by the reference court is erroneous. Exhibit A-3 relates to sale deed dated 6.3.1984 for area measur-ing 1.2 cents for consideration of Rs. 8,000/- per cent. Similarly, sale deed, exhibit A-4 was also of small area. The High Court did not discard exhibits A-3 & A-4 while determining the compensation of the acquired land. The High Court relied upon exhibits A-3 and A-4 but reduced the compensation granted by the reference court from Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 8,500/- for categories 3(b) & 4(b) to Rs. 6,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- respectively. Exhibit A-3 & A-4 which relate to small pieces of land do not reflect the correct market value of large tract of acquired land measur-ing 105 acres. It is common knowledge of which judicial notice can be taken that sale of small pieces of land fetch more price than the sale of large tract of land. Keeping that view in mind the High Court has proportionately reduced the price of land while determining the compensation for the large tract of acquired land. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment under challenge.
4. Learned counsel then urged that in any case the appellants were entitled to the same rate of compensation as was granted by the High Court in L.A.A. no. 492/92 decided on 23.11.1992 against which no appeal was filed. The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the state has filed appeals in respect of other matters except in L.A.A. no. 492/92 as grant of compensation involved, therein was very petty amount. The explanation given by the state government for not preferring the appeal against the judgment in L.A.A. no. 492/92 is reasonable. We are, therefore, of the view that the said judgment of the High Court cannot be made basis for awarding compensation to the appellants herein.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. A large tract of land situated in Thrikkakara, south village in Kanayannur taluk in the district of Ernakulam was sought to be acquired by State of Kerala for setting up an export processing zone. For that purpose, on 28.1.1985, the government issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said notification was followed by another notification issued under section 6 of the Act. Subsequently on 25.2.1986, the land acquisition officer gave an award in respect of the acquired land. The land acquisition officer categorised the land under various categories. The categories which are relevant for the purpose of these cases are category nos. 3(b) and 4(b). The land acquisition officer offered compensation for category no. 3(b) @ Rs. 4048/- per cent and for category no. 4(b) @ Rs. 4453/- per cent. Aggrieved, the claimants sought reference before the civil court. The reference court enhanced the compensation for the acquired land. For category no. 3(b), the reference court en-hanced compensation to Rs. 8,000/- per cent and for category 4(b) Rs. 8,500/- per cent respectively. Aggrieved, the State of Kerala preferred regular first appeals before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, modified the judgment of the reference court and thereby reduced the enhance compensation and it is against the said judgment of the High Court, the claim-ants have preferred these appeals.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that no evidence having been adduced by the state government in regard to grant of lower rate of compensation for the acquired land, the High Court ought to have given compensation as reflected in exhibits A-3 and A-4 and that the judgment of the High Court modifying the judgment given by the reference court is erroneous. Exhibit A-3 relates to sale deed dated 6.3.1984 for area measur-ing 1.2 cents for consideration of Rs. 8,000/- per cent. Similarly, sale deed, exhibit A-4 was also of small area. The High Court did not discard exhibits A-3 & A-4 while determining the compensation of the acquired land. The High Court relied upon exhibits A-3 and A-4 but reduced the compensation granted by the reference court from Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 8,500/- for categories 3(b) & 4(b) to Rs. 6,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- respectively. Exhibit A-3 & A-4 which relate to small pieces of land do not reflect the correct market value of large tract of acquired land measur-ing 105 acres. It is common knowledge of which judicial notice can be taken that sale of small pieces of land fetch more price than the sale of large tract of land. Keeping that view in mind the High Court has proportionately reduced the price of land while determining the compensation for the large tract of acquired land. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment under challenge.
4. Learned counsel then urged that in any case the appellants were entitled to the same rate of compensation as was granted by the High Court in L.A.A. no. 492/92 decided on 23.11.1992 against which no appeal was filed. The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the state has filed appeals in respect of other matters except in L.A.A. no. 492/92 as grant of compensation involved, therein was very petty amount. The explanation given by the state government for not preferring the appeal against the judgment in L.A.A. no. 492/92 is reasonable. We are, therefore, of the view that the said judgment of the High Court cannot be made basis for awarding compensation to the appellants herein.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
