IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 680 of 2006(D)
1. SMT.VALSALA,
... Petitioner
2. SMT.VASUMATHY,
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :02/07/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.Nos.680, 681,715,725,810,
833,882 of 2006 &53, 809 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.
These are all appeals preferred by the claimants and the cases
pertain to acquisition of land in Puzhakkal Padom in Ayyanthole
village in Thrissur district for the purpose of Industrial Development
Plots. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on
29-07-2000. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate
of Rs. 3710/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned
judgment refixed the land value at the rate of RS. 5930.4/- per Are
corresponding to Rs. 2,400/- per cent. In these appeals, the appellants
uniformly contend that the enhancement granted by the reference court
is inadequate. According to them, there was evidence on record to
grant much more enhancement.
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.S.Karthika, learned
counsel for the appellants and those of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior
Government Pleader. Smt.Karthika would argue that the court below
LAA.No.680/06 & connected cases
2
was not at all justified in rejecting the documents relied on by the
claimants. According to her, the comparability of the acquired property
and the property covered by the documents relied on, was reported by
the Advocate Commissioner who submitted Ext.C1. Learned counsel
submitted that it is on flimsy reasons that the learned Subordinate
Judge rejected the documents produced by the claimants.
3. Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader
would resist the submissions of Smt.Karthika and argue that the learned
Subordinate Judge has rejected the documents produced by the
claimants giving valid reasons. According to Sri.Bsant Balaji even the
enhancement granted under the impugned judgment is excessive.
Sri.Basant Balaji however would fairly submit that we have by our
judgment in L.A.A.No.9/2007 dated 30-06-2009 approved refixation
by the same learned Subordinate Judge of the value of exactly similar
lands under acquisition at Rs. 7042.35. He submitted that in the light
of our judgment granting approval to such refixation , there may be
justification in this court refixing the value of the properties in these
cases also at Rs. 7042.35 so that there will be a parity in the values
LAA.No.680/06 & connected cases
3
ultimately awarded by the land acquisition court for properties which
were given same value by the land acquisition officer.
4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions.
We have made a thorough reappraisal of the evidence. We are of the
view that the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge in the
impugned judgment for rejecting the various documents put in
evidence by the claimants are valid reasons. We note that what the
court below has done is to rely on the basis document which was
executed two years prior to the relevant Section 4(1) notification, give
an addition of 20% for passage of time between the date of the
document and the date of Section 4(1) notification and to grant further
addition towards aspects such as importance of the locality,
developments in the locality immediately prior to the date of Section
4(1) notification and subsequently . The approach of the learned
Subordinate Judge was in general, reasonable. But at the same time,
we feel having made a reappraisal of the evidence and having made a
more realistic assessment of the market value in the locality at the
relevant time and taking into account the potentialities of the properties
LAA.No.680/06 & connected cases
4
under acquisition, the correct market value of the properties under
acquisition in all these cases can be fixed at Rs. 7500/- per Are
corresponding to Rs. 3035/- per cent. Accordingly, we refix the market
value of the lands under acquisition at Rs. 7500/- per Are
corresponding to Rs. 3035/- per cent.
5. All these appeals will stand allowed to that extent. It is
needless to mention that the appellant/claimants will be entitled for all
statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and Section
28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to
which they become eligible by virtue of our refixation of
compensation under this judgment.
All these appeals are allowed as above. But, in the circumstances,
parties are directed to suffer their costs in these appeals.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
sv
LAA.No.680/06 & connected cases
5