IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1578 of 2007(D)
1. LEELA, D/O.LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA,
... Petitioner
2. SUBHADRA, D/O.LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA,
3. SASIDHARAN, S/O.LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA,
4. MURALEEDHARAN,
5. PREMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.BABU
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :22/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No. 1578 OF 2007
------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in Puthencruz
village were acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification
published on 4.11.2000 for the purposes of Cochin Refineries
Ltd. Properties were included in category 4 i.e. inferior dry lands
and the LAO awarded value at the rate of Rs.29,000/- per Are.
The claimants relied on various documents. The learned
Subordinate Judge did not rely on the documents produced by
the claimants. Ultimately taking a cue from Ext.A3, which was
reference file pertaining to some other case, the learned
Subordinate Judge enhanced the market value of the property
by 11.72% and refixed at Rs.32,400/-.
2.Having considered the grounds raised and the
submissions addressed before us by Sri.K.S.Babu, learned
counsel for the appellants, and also by Smt.Thusara James,
LAA.No.1578/2007 2
learned counsel for the requisitioning authority and having kept
in mind the relevant materials and binding judicial precedents
governing the issue, we are of the view that the learned
Subordinate Judge was a little miserly when it came to fixing the
market value. We are informed that Ext.A4 judgment was
carried in appeal by the claimants and this Court enhanced the
rate granted by the Reference Court. We are of the view that
on a better assessment based on all relevant materials, the
market value of the land under acquisition can be refixed at Rs.
40,000/- per Are. As pointed out by Smt.Thusara, the properties
under acquisition was a large plot extending to 42 Ares. In view
of the largeness of the plot, we are of the view that, in view of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atma Singh (dead)
through LRs and others v. State of Haryana and another (2008 )2
SCC 568) we make a cut of 5% and fix the market value of the
land under acquisition at Rs.38,000/- per Are.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The
appellants/claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits
admissible under section 23(2) , 23(1A) and section 28 of the Act
on the total enhanced compensation to which they become
LAA.No.1578/2007 3
eligible by virtue of this judgment. The parties are directed to
suffer their respective costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk