IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 752 of 2006()
1. K.MANOHARAN, VILLUAMANGALATH VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER (NO MEMO)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.Nos.752 & 837 of 2006
and L.A.A.No.47 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 7th August, 2008
JUDGMENT
All these appeals have been filed by the respective claimants in
a common judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge’s Court,
Kollam in LAR Nos.128/98, 145/98 & 135/98. The acquisition was
pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 19.7.1996 for the
construction of National Highway by-pass. The properties were
situated within the limits of Thrikkadavoor Panchayat said to be only
5 K.M. away from the Kollam Municipal Corporation. The Land
Acquisition Officer relying on the basis document, would award the
land value at the rate of Rs.35,405/- per Are for the properties
covered in LAR Nos.128/98 & 145/98. For the properties involved in
LAR No.135/98, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value
at the rate of Rs.49,003/- per Are. The reference court relying on
Exts.A1 and A2 documents would refix the land value for the
properties in LAR No.128/98 (covered by LAA No.752/06) and LAR
No.145/98 (covered by LAA No.837/06) at Rs.40,000/- per Are.
Regarding the properties involved in LAR No.135/98 (covered by LAA
No.47/07) the reference court would endorse the view of the Land
LAA No.752/06 etc. – 2 –
Acquisition Officer that the said property was superior to the
properties involved in other cases and would refix the land value at
Rs.60,000/- per Are.
2. The ground which is prominently raised in these appeals is
that the court below committed a mistake of misreading Exts.A1 and
A2.
3. I have heard the submissions of Mr.C.Unnikrishnan, counsel
for the appellants and Smt.Latha Thankappan, Senior Government
Pleader on behalf of the respondents.
4. Mr.Unnikrishnan drew my attention to Exts.A1 and A2 and
submitted that those documents pertain to 5 cents of land each only
and not 10 cents of land as wrongly read by the learned Subordinate
Judge.
5. The Government Pleader would submit that Exts.A1 and A2
were not properly proved before the court below. Nobody connected
with the execution of those two documents were examined. P.Ws.1
and 2, the claimants did not give any responsible evidence regarding
the correctness of the market value seen paid as per Exts.A1 and A2.
6. Under the impugned common judgment the court below has
accepted Exts.A1 and A2 as revealing bona fide transactions of sale of
LAA No.752/06 etc. – 3 –
comparable property. It has been found specifically that Exts.A1 and
A2 properties were exactly similar to the properties involved in LAR
Nos.128/98 & 145/98. That finding is entered by the learned
Subordinate Judge relying on the testimony of A.Ws.1 and 2. It was
noticed by the court that there was no serious cross examination on
P.Ws.1 and 2 on their evidence that Exts.A1 and A2 documents are
bona fide transactions of sale of comparable properties. The
Government has not preferred any appeal nor has filed cross
objections with regard to the above finding. The finding of the court
below that the properties in Exts.A1 and A2 were comparable to the
properties involved in LAR Nos.128/98 and 145/98 cannot be assailed
now by the Government.
7. Having reappreciated the evidence particularly Exts.A1 and
A2 and the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2, I have no difficulty to accept
the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the
reference court committed mistake while appreciating Exts.A1 and
A2. Exts.A1 and A2 pertain to 5 cents each of land only. Thus, if
Exts.A1 and A2 were to be followed correctly, the land value should
have been refixed at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per cent (corresponding
to Rs.75,000/- per Are). According to the Land Acquisition Officer, the
LAA No.752/06 etc. – 4 –
ratio between the values of the property which are subject matter of
LAR Nos.128/98 and 145/98 and the property which is the subject
matter of LAR No.135/98 is Rs.35,405/- : Rs.49,003/- per Are.
Following that ratio, the market value of the properties involved in
LAR No.135/98 (covered by LAA No.47/07) should be refixed at
Rs.1,05,000/- per Are.
8. The result of the above discussion is that the appeals are
allowed to the following extent:
The judgments and decrees passed by the reference court are
set aside and in modification, the land value of the properties
involved in LAR No.128/98 (covered by LAA No.752/06) and LAR
No.145/98 (covered by LAA No.837/06) is refixed at Rs.75,000/- per
Are and the land value of the properties involved in LAR No.135/98
(covered by LAA No.47/07) is refixed at Rs.1,05,000/- per Are. It is
needless to mention that the parties will be entitled to all statutory
benefits on the enhanced land value including solatium, interest at
the statutory rates and also the amounts due under Section 23(1A).
The parties are directed to suffer their costs through out.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
LAA No.752/06 etc. - 5 -