IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1528 of 2009()
1. MAYAN, S/O.PARANGODAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.D.GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :25/01/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.Nos. 1528 & 1559 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 25 day of January, 2010
th
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in
Edappally North Village were acquired for the purpose of
widening of NH-17. The relevant Section 4 (1) notification was
published on 14/3/2002. The Land Acquisition Officer included
the properties in category 3 and awarded land value at the rate
of Rs.1,14,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the
evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, AWs 1 to 3, Exts.C1 to C2
(a) and Exts.R1 to R4. Apart from that, the appellants relied on
the judgment in LAR No.55/2007, a case relating to the property
in category 5, wherein after upgrading the property, the
Reference Court had refixed the value at Rs.1,68,000/- per Are.
This was done by filing an application under Order 13 Rule 10 for
relying on the records in LAR 55/2007. The advocate
commissioner in Ext.C1 report had made a comparison of the
properties under acquisition and the properties covered by L.A.R.
No. 55/2007. The advocate commissioner, though not in so
LAA.Nos.1528 & 1559/2009 2
many words, had indicated that the properties under acquisition
were superior to the property covered by L.A.R. No.55/2007.
The court below, however, did not become inclined to place any
reliance on the judgment in L.A.R. No. 55/2007, for the
technical reason that certified copy of the above judgment had
not been made available before the Commissioner.
2. In these appeals various grounds are raised and we have
heard the submissions of Sri. E.D.George, learned counsel for the
appellants, who addressed arguments on all those grounds. The
learned counsel would highlight the judgment in L.A.R.
No.55/2007 and the commission report. According to him, the
court below ought to have granted at least Rs.1,68,000/- per
Are.
3. All the submissions of Sri.George were very strongly
opposed by the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant
Balaji. He submitted that admittedly, the properties under
acquisition and the property, which is subject matter of LAR
No.55/2007,(even after the up gradation) were included in
different categories and hence not comparable. Therefore,
according to the learned Government Pleader, the judgment in
LAA.Nos.1528 & 1559/2009 3
LAR No.55/2007 cannot have any application. He also submitted
that judgment in LAR No. 55/2007 has not attained finality.
4. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions
addressed at the Bar. We are unable to accept the submission
of the learned counsel for the appellants for following the
judgment in LAR No.55/2007. Admittedly and evidently, the
properties in LAR No.55/2007 and the properties under
acquisition were included in two different categories.
Therefore, the question of the rate granted to the property in
LAR No. 55/2007 being granted for the properties under
acquisition in the present cases will not arise. However, having
gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that the learned
Sub Judge was a little miserly when he came to fixing the market
value of the land under acquisition, which were situated in
Edapally North village and were enjoying frontage of NH-17. We
notice various judgments of this court pertaining to the
acquisition in the same village and for the same purpose and
find that almost uniformly, this court has found that the land
value is at least 45% above the value fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer. We are of the view that the same principles
LAA.Nos.1528 & 1559/2009 4
can be adopted in these two cases and the market value of the
land under acquisition can be refixed at Rs.1,65,300/- per Are.
We do so.
The appeal is allowed as above fixing the market value of
land under acquisition at Rs.1,65,300/- per Are. It is needless to
mention that the appellants will be entitled for all statutory
benefits admissible under Section 23(1A) 23(2) and Section 28
of the Act for the enhanced compensation to which, the
appellants become 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