The State Of Kerala vs Khadeejabi on 27 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 1109 of 2007()


1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION)

                        Vs



1. KHADEEJABI, W/O. MOHAMMED,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :27/08/2009

 O R D E R
           PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ
            -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              L.A.A.NO.1109 OF 2007
                               --------------------------------
                  Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009.


                                   J U D G M E N T

Pius C.Kuriakose,J

The Government is the appellant and they are aggrieved by the

re-fixation of the market value of the land under acquisition. The Land

Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1000/- per cent,

which was enhanced by the reference court at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per

cent. The acquisition was for the purpose of doubling railway line. The

relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 18.11.2002. Before the

reference Court, evidence consisted of Ext.A1 to A3 and the oral evidence

of AW1 on the side of the claimant, apart from Ext.X1 Commission report

submitted by the Commissioner after local inspection. On the side of the

Government basic document was marked as Ext.R1. In this appeal the

Government challenges the award of the Reference Court on the reason

that the same is based only on the report of Advocate Commissioner, who

made recommendation relying on the information gathered by him from the

local people.

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan learned

Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the claimant. We have

2

gone through the impugned judgment. We have made a re-appraisal of

the evidence. Even though Exts.A1 to A3 were produced by the claimant,

under the impugned judgment, instead of relying on those documents the

reference Court determined the market value of the lands under

acquisition based only on the recommendation of advocate commissioner.

Unless those recommendations are based on value revealed by some

documents of sale the same cannot be accepted. In the instant case we

cannot approve the action of the learned Sub Judge who granted

enhancement relying solely on the recommendation made by the advocate

commissioner. On a re-valuation of the evidence and on a better

assessment based on the evidence available on record we feel that the

market value of the land under acquisition can be re-fixed at the rate of

Rs.3000/- per cent. Accordingly setting aside the judgment and decree

under appeal we re-fix the value of the land under acquisition at the rate of

Rs. 3000/- per cent. Appeal stands allowed, but without any order as to

costs. The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits on the total

compensation to which they are eligible by virtue of this judgment.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE ,JUDGE.

K. SURENDRAMOHAN, JUDGE.

pm