IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1281 of 2000(A)
1. STATE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. G. SREEDHARAN NAIR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :05/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
L.A.A. 1281 of 2000
---------------------------------------------
Dated: JUNE 5, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
This appeal preferred by the Government pertains to
acquisition of land in Kottarakkara village for the purpose of
construction of P & T Staff Quarter of the Post and Telegraph
Department. The relevant sec.4(1) notification was published on
1.10.1980. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the
rate of Rs.5741/- per Are corresponding to Rs.2323/- per cent,
relying on the basis document.
2. Before the reference court, the evidence consisted of
Ext.A1, copy of sale deed No.1798/1985 of the Sub Registry,
Kottarakkara, Ext.C1 mahazar prepared by an advocate
commissioner deputed by the court and Ext.C2 report submitted
by that commissioner apart from the oral testimonies of Aws.1
and 2.
L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 2
3. Ext.A1 was in respect of a property which took in a
building also. Ext.A1 revealed a much higher land value than
the rate granted by the land acquisition officer. The reference
court, however, did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1 for the
reason stated in the judgment. According to us, the reasons are
good and the reference court was justified in not relying on
Ext.A1. The reference court, at the instance of the claimants,
looked into the files of the court pertaining to LAR 22/1989 and
23/1989. It was seen that in those two cases the court had re-
fixed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent. The court also
found that the properties in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989 were
inferior to the acquired properties in this case,being partially filled
up paddy fields. It was found that the acquired property was
pucca dry land situated very near to the famous Ganapathi
temple at Kottarakkara. Ultimately what the learned Sub Judge
did was to grant the same value as revealed in the judgment in
LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989.
4. We have heard the submissions of the learned Senior
Government Pleader Mr. P.K. Babu and those of Smt. Bindu
L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 3
Sreekumar and also the Senior counsel Mr. Achuthakurup, for the
respondent.
5. Sri Babu submitted that the reliance placed by the
learned Subordinate Judge on the judgment in LAR 22/1989 and
23/1989 was not justified. According to him the learned
Subordinate Judge did not notice that those two judgments were
in cases pursuant to acquisition on 5.8.1996 i.e. six years after
the acquisition in the present case. Therefore, according to the
learned Government Pleader, deductions should have been made
on the value awarded under those two judgments.
6. Mr. Achuthakurup, per contra, submitted that unlike the
property in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989, the acquired property in
this case was pucca dry land situated in the most important area
of the town being in close proximity to the famous Ganapathi
temple. Considering the superiority of the land, more than what
was awarded to the parties in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989 should
have been awarded to the claimant in this case.
7. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions
addressed at the Bar and we have carefully gone through the
L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 4
judgment. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate
Judge who was bound to re-fix the market value had no better
document than the court’s own award in LAR 22/1989 and
23/1989 to rely for determination of the market value.
However, we notice that the relevant sec.4(1) notification in LAR
22/1989 and 23/1989 was published six years after the sec.4(1)
notification in this case. We have also noticed that the
properties in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989 were inferior to the
acquired property in this case. Relying on the judgment in LAR
22/1989 and 23/1989 and taking into account the superiority of
the acquired property, we hold that the value of the property
similar to the acquired property as on 5.8.1986 would be
Rs.13000/- per cent. But deductions are to be made for the time
lag between the sec.4(1) notification in the present case and the
sec.4(1) notification in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989. Following the
judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Cor.
Ltd. v. R. Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008 SAR (civil) 894), it will
be necessary to make a deduction of atleast 60% on the above
fixed amount of Rs.13,000/-. On the facts of this case we are not
L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 5
inclined to make so much of deduction since we find that the
acquired property is situated in a more important area of the
town and has commercial potentialities in the maximum.
According to us, a sum of Rs.8500/- per cent would have been
the correct market value of the property at the relevant time.
Allowing the appeal, we re-fix the market value of the
property at Rs.8500/- per cent. It is needless to mention that
the appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible
to him under secs.23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition
Act on the enhanced compensation to which the appellant
becomes eligible on account of our re-fixation. In the
circumstances, the parties will suffer their costs throughout.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-
L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 6
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------
L.A.A.1281 Of 2000
JUDGMENT
------------------------------
5.6.2009