IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1391 of 2007()
1. THE MOTHER SUPERIOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.JAYASANKAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER (NO MEMO)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :09/10/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No. 1391 of 2007
------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The claimant is in appeal. It appears to us that there are
some elements of genuineness in the grievance voiced by her.
Her property was acquired for the purpose of Idamalayar
Irrigation Project. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was
published on 24/5/1997. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded
land value at the rate of Rs.20,938/- per Are including the
property in category 1 lands with road frontage. The Reference
Court on evaluating the evidence would refix the land value at
Rs.29,313/- per Are granting enhancement by 40% over what
was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The ground, which
is prominently raised in this memorandum of appeal is that the
same Reference Court has granted much more enhancement
under Exts.A2 and A3 judgments, which also pertain to
acquisition of lands included in the same category by the Land
Acquisition Officer and acquired for the same purpose pursuant
to the same notification. This discrimination, according to
LAA.No.1391/2007 2
Sri.Jayasankar B. learned counsel for the appellant is not at all
justified. Sri.Jayakumar submitted that though it is true that the
land under acquisition in the present case is an extensive area,
the land was enjoying road frontage on three sides, so that it
was always possible for the owner to sell the property if he
wanted, by dividing the same into small plots. Sri.Jayakumar
also submitted that the court below went wrong in not accepting
the appellant’s claim for enhancement towards the value of
improvements.
3. All the submissions of Sri.Jayakumar were opposed by
the learned senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha T.Thankappan.
She submitted that it is trite that wholesale price will always be
lesser than the retail price and that owners of larger plots are not
entitled to the rates awarded to the small plots.
4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the
Bar, we are in agreement with the learned Sub Judge in his view
that the appellant is not entitled for the value awarded under
Exts.A2 and A3 despite the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer
has awarded the same value for all these properties. At the
same time, we feel that the difference of 30% maintained by the
LAA.No.1391/2007 3
learned Sub Judge under the impugned Judgment between the
values awarded under Exts.A2 and A3 and the present impugned
judgment is not justified. On a better assessment taking into
account all the relevant aspects of the matter including the
circumstance that the acquired property was enjoying road
frontage on three sides, we refix the value of the lands under
acquisition at Rs.31,500/- per Are. We are not inclined to accept
the submission of Sri.Jayasankar regarding the proper
compensation to be awarded for the improvements which existed
on the property, since we notice that no specific ground in that
regard has been raised in the memorandum of appeal.
The appeal is allowed refixing the market value of land
under Acquisition at Rs.31,500/-. The appellant will be entitled
for all statutory benefit admissible under law on the total
enhanced compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue
of this judgment.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
dpk