IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 222 of 2004(A)
1. K.V.SABU, S/O.K.I.VARGHESE, AGE 41,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(CN),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.MOHANAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :01/02/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.222 of 2004
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The claimant is in appeal. His property situated in
Ernakulam village was acquired for the purpose of doubling
of Railway Track between Ernakulam junction and
Ernakulam marshelling yard. The Land Acquisition Officer
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,03,800/- per Are.
Before the Reference Court, the claimant placed reliance on
Exts.A1 and A2. Exts.A1 and A2 were Land Acquisition
Officer’s award and court award respectively in respect of
acquisition of land in Elamkulam village situated at a
distance of 500 metres from the acquired property. In
Exts.A1 and A2 the court had approved the value of
Rs.1,96,500/- per Are. Under the impugned judgment, the
L. A. A. No.222 of 2004 -2-
learned Subordinate Judge has observed that the properties
covered by Ext.A1 and the acquired property are
comparable and the distance between the two is only 500
metres.
2. One of the arguments which was addressed before
us by Sri.K.R.Mohanan, the learned counsel for the
appellant was that the learned Subordinate Judge should
have found that property in Ernakulam village will have
more value than properties in Elamkulam village. We notice
some merit in the above argument. At the same time, we
are not inclined to re-fix the market value of the land under
acquisition accepting the above argument.
3. Another argument which was addressed by
Sri.Mohanan was that the court below could have made
additions to value covered by Exts.A1 and A2 in view of the
passage of about three years’ time. This argument is
certainly meritorious and we are inclined to accept the same
L. A. A. No.222 of 2004 -3-
to a considerable extent. According to us, the learned
Subordinate Judge was not justified in discarding Exts.A1
and A2 altogether and in preferring the judgment in
LAR.16/02. We are of the view that relying on Exts.A1 and
A2 and making additions for passage of time between the
two notifications under Section 4(1), the market value of the
land under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at
Rs.2,63,000/- per Are. It is accordingly fixed. The appellant
will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under
Section 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective
costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
kns/-
L. A. A. No.222 of 2004 -4-