IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 197 of 2008()
1. GIJI MATHEW, THEKKEL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :22/10/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.Nos. 197 & 418 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The claimants are in appeal. The acquisition was for the
purpose of construction of a bridge. The properties were in
Muvattupuzha village. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on
Ext.A4 basis document and awarded land value at the rate of
Rs.17,646/- per Are. In fact the land value disclosed in Ext.A4
basis document was Rs.29,411/- per Are. The Land Acquisition
Officer deducted 40% on the reason that the property covered by
the basis document was more important than the properties
under acquisition and it was on that reason the value was fixed
at Rs.17,646/- per Are. Even though the several documents
were produced by the appellant/claimant before the Reference
Court, the learned Sub Judge placed reliance mainly on Ext.A4
itself and also on Ext.X1 report submitted by an advocate
commissioner, who had inspected the properties under
acquisition as well as the properties covered by Ext.A4. The
Reference Court, however, did not become inclined to award the
LAA.No.197 & 418/2008 2
land value at Rs.29,411/- per Are reflected in Ext.A4 observing as
follows;
“It has come out in evidence that
Ext.A4 property is situated in more
important area when compared to the
present properties. There is no material to
come to a conclusion that Ext.A4 property
and the property covered by the present
references are similar and similarly situated.
Hence, the prayer of the claimant cannot be
granted”.
2. In these appeals, the appellant mainly contend that the
court below should have refixed the land value at Rs.29,411/-
per Are. i.e. the centage value reflected in Ext.A4 itself. In fact
the claim in appeals is limited to the above amount.
3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.V.M.Kurian,
learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.Basant Balaji,
learned senior Government Pleader. We were taken through the
impugned judgment as well as through Ext.X1 commission
LAA.No.197 & 418/2008 3
report and the oral testimony rendered by AW3 the advocate
commissioner. Sri.Kurian submitted that the observations of the
learned Sub Judge that the evidence is to the effect that the
acquired property is inferior to the property covered by Ext.A4 is
contrary to the evidence actually on record.
4. Even though the submissions of Sri.Kurian were resisted
by the learned Government Pleader, who would support the
impugned judgment on the various reasons stated therein,
having made a reappriasal of the evidence, particularly Ext.X1
commission report and testimony of the commissioner as AW3,
we are of the view that the court below was in error in
concluding that the property under acquisition was inferior to
the property covered by Ext.A4 and according to us, the
appellant should have been awarded centage value of land as
reflected in Ext.A1. Under the above circumstances, allowing
these appeals and in modification of the land value fixed under
the impugned judgment, we refix the value of land under
Acquisition at Rs.29,400/- per Are.
The appeals will stand allowed . But in the circumstances
without any order as to costs. The appellant/claimant will be
LAA.No.197 & 418/2008 4
entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23
(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act to which she becomes
eligible by virtue of refixation under this judgment.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
dpk