Pious & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Anr

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

These appeals are filed seeking enhancement of compensation in land acquisition proceedings. The records reveal that the appellants' land bearing Survey Nos. 236/2­5(1), 236/2­5(2), 236/3­6, 235/3­9 & 235/2­7 were acquired along with various other lands for the purpose of the Muvatupuzha Valley Irrigation Project, Koothattukulam. The Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were issued on different dates whereas the final declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23.02.2007 covering all the lands. We find from the records that the Land Acquisition Officer has categorised the lands as Class­I to Class­X. The lands bearing Survey Nos. 236/2­5(1) & 236/2­5(2) were categorised as Class­I, Survey No. 236/3­6 as Class­III, and Survey Nos. 235/3­9 & 235/2­7 as Class­IV. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at Rs. 23,819/­ per Are for Class­I land, Rs. 21,438/­ per Are for Class­III land and Rs. 17,151/­ per Are for the Class­IV land of the appellants. The Reference Court did not enhance any compensation in respect of the Class­I land, and consequently, confirmed the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 23,819/­ per Are (for Class­I land). The said order in reference was confirmed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

The compensation awarded at Rs. 21,438/­ per Are for Class­III land was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs. 23,095/­ per Are. The High Court confirmed the said award of the Reference Court for the Class­III land. So far as the Class­IV land of the appellants is concerned, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.17,151/­ per Are was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs. 17,322/­ per Are. The High Court confirmed the award of the Reference Court with respect to the Class­IV land of the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by such award made by the Reference Court and the High Court, the appellants have filed these appeals.

Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants, has drawn the attention of this Court towards the award made by the Reference Court at Rs. 55,800/­ per Are in respect of Survey No. 244/3­6 (Class­VIII land) from the same village, Kumaramangalam, as well as the award made in respect of Survey No. 169/3­16 (Class­I land) at Rs. 87,672/­ per Are, and sought parity in granting the compensation. The aforementioned lands were acquired under the very declaration dated 23.02.2007.

The aforementioned factors are not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State, and he submits that the matter needs to be sent back to the Reference Court to make a fresh decision in accordance with law. We decline to accept the said submission, inasmuch as there is no need to do so since the entire material is before the Court, and is undisputed. Moreover, the acquisition dates back to 2007 and remitting it at this stage would further prolong the proceedings significantly.

It is not in dispute that the higher the class of land, the lower its quality, which means that Class­I land is of a higher quality than Class­II land, and so on. A chart depicting the comparability of the award made in respect of other lands has been placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellants before the Court. It is not in dispute that various lands including the appellants' lands were acquired in one batch under the same declaration dated 23.02.2007. The appellants were awarded less compensation compared to the compensation awarded in favour of third parties. As a matter of fact, even the compensation awarded for the Class­ VIII land of the third parties concerned is higher than the compensation awarded to the appellants' Class­I land.

It is by now well­settled that lands which are acquired under the similar notification, having similar characteristics, acquired for the same purpose, and from the same village, should be given similar compensation.

It is clear that the land categorised as Class­I bearing Survey No. 169/3­16 was awarded compensation at Rs. 87,672/­ per Are, whereas the appellants' lands categorised as Class­I bearing Survey Nos. 236/2­5(1) & 236/2­5(2) were awarded only Rs. 23,819/­ per Are. We find no reason to award less compensation to the appellants' lands categorised as Class­I land. In view of the same, the appellants are justified in arguing for grant of compensation based on parity. Accordingly, the appellants' lands bearing Survey Nos. 236/2­5(1) & 236/2­5(2) (both Class­I lands) shall be awarded compensation at Rs. 87,672/­ per Are. Ordered accordingly.

So far as the lands of the appellants bearing Survey No. 236/3­6 (Class­III), and Survey Nos. 235/3­9 & 235/2­7 (Class­IV) are concerned, compensation needs to be enhanced at least at the rate at which the Class­ VIII land of other owners was awarded compensation. As mentioned supra, Class­VIII land in the form of Survey No. 244/3­6 of certain third parties has been awarded compensation at Rs. 55,800/­ per Are. Indisputably, Class­III and Class­IV lands are superior lands as compared to Class­VIII land. In view of the same, the appellants' Class­III and Class­IV lands should be awarded at least the same compensation as awarded in respect of the Class­VIII land of the third parties, if not more. Accordingly, the lands bearing Survey No. 236/3­6 (Class­III), and Survey Nos. 235/3­9 & 235/2­7 (Class­IV) shall be awarded compensation at Rs. 55,800/­ per Are. Ordered accordingly.

The appeals are allowed to the extent mentioned supra. The awards made by the Reference Court and the High Court are modified to the said extent. Needless to mention, the appellants are entitled to all the statutory benefits as per law.