IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 997 of 2007(D)
1. KUNJU MOIDEEN, S/O.KHADEEJA LABBA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUHAMMED VADAKKADATHU, KAVUMKARA,
... Respondent
2. ALIYARU PATHU, KATTAKATHU,
3. SMT.KHADEEJA LABBA, W/O.BAVA LABBA,
4. JABBAR, S/O.KHADEEJA LABBA,
5. SUHARA, D/O.KHADEEJA LABBA,
6. NASEERA , D/O.KHADEEJA LABBA,
7. MAHABOOB, S/O.KHADEEJA LABBA,
8. BEEVI, D/O. KHADEEJA LABBA,
9. SHYLA, D/O. KHADEEJA LABBA,
10. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.ANILKUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :03/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.997 of 2007
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The claimant is in appeal. The acquisition was for the
construction of Muvattupuzha-Chalikkadavu bridge over the
Muvattupuzha river. The relevant Section 4(1) notification
was published on 17/01/2000. The extent involved is just
one cent. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at
the rate of Rs.79,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court,
the parties were concerned with the correct value payable
for the land only. The claimant relied on Ext.A4, a post
notification document. Ext.A4 was not relied on by the
learned Sub Court inter alia on the reason that the same
was not properly proved. The learned Subordinate Judge
ultimately would apply the rule of thumb and enhance the
L. A. A. No.997 of 2007 -2-
land value by Rs.24,000/- per Are and would thus, re-fix the
land value at Rs.1,30,000/- per Are.
2. In this appeal, the claimant has raised various
grounds assailing the judgment of the learned Subordinate
Judge. We have heard the submissions of Sr.N.Anil Kumar,
the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Latha T.
Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader for the
Government. Sri.Anil Kumar, drew our attention to Ext.A4
and submitted that the court below was not justified in
rejecting Ext.A4. Learned counsel requested that the case
be remanded to the Reference Court so as to afford
opportunity to the appellant for properly proving Ext.A4.
Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would take strong exception to an opportunity being
given to the claimant for proving Ext.A4. She submitted that
Ext.A4 pertains to a tiny bit of land with a building. No
L. A. A. No.997 of 2007 -3-
separate value is shown in Ext.A4 for the land and building.
Ext.A4 is of no value in determining the correct market
value of the land in question. She also argued that resort to
post notification documents can be had only when pre-
notification documents are not available. That is not the
situation in this case. We find considerable merit in the
submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader. The
learned Senior Government Pleader would fairly bring to our
notice the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.498/06 to which
one among us [PCK(J)] is party. Under that judgment, the
value of similar lands acquired for the same purpose
pursuant to same notification has been re-fixed at
Rs.1,30,000/- per Are. Senior Government Pleader
submitted that the appeal can be allowed to the extent of
re-fixing the land value at Rs.1,30,000/- per Are.
Sri.Anilkumar would however, make a very fervent appeal
L. A. A. No.997 of 2007 -4-
for a remand order. According to him, the claimant may be
able to produce other prenotification documents reflecting
higher value for identical lands. Considering the submissions
of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are inclined to
pass an order of remand.
3. In the result, the judgment under appeal is set
aside. L.A.R.115/05 is remanded to the Sub Court,
Muvattupuzha. That court is directed to take a fresh decision
in the LAR and re-fix the market value of the land involved
in the case. While making such re-fixation due regard shall
be had to the judgment of this Court in LAA.498/06. The
claimant is at liberty to adduce further evidence including
pre-notification documents pertaining to comparable lands
and if such further evidence is adduced, the court can rely
on such further evidence also for fixing the correct market
value of the land. The parties will enter appearance before
L. A. A. No.997 of 2007 -5-
the court below on 07/02/11. Refund the full court fee
remitted on the appeal memo to Sri.N.Anil Kumar, the
learned counsel for the appellant. Before copy of the
judgment is issued, Registry will ensure that the full court
fee is remitted by the appellant.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
kns/-
L. A. A. No.997 of 2007 -6-
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
————————————————
L. A. A. No.997 of 2007
————————————————
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The appeal is remaining in the defect list on the reason
that service of notice is not completed on R9. But we find
that R3 is the mother of R9 and R4 to R8 are the siblings of
R9. In fact, all these respondents were toeing the same line
engaging the same counsel before the Sub Court. Under the
above circumstances, we exonerate the appellant from the
obligation of taking out notice afresh to R9. The appeal need
not be treated as defective. Post the appeal after two weeks
in the hearing list.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
L. A. A. No.997 of 2007 -7-
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-