IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 498 of 2006(D)
1. MOOSA, S/O.ANTHRU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :18/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.498 of 2006
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
This is appeal preferred by the claimant and the
case pertains to acquisition of land in Velloorkunnam
village within the limits of Muvattupuzha municipality
for the purpose of construction of a bridge across the
Muvattupuzha river at Chalikkadavu. The relevant
Section 4(1) notification was published on 17/01/2000
and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at
the rate of Rs.79,000/- per Are. Before the Reference
Court, the claimants relied on Exts.A1 and A2 both
pre-notification documents executed three years
earlier in favour of Muvattupuzha municipality. They
also relied on Ext.A3 post notification document and
L. A. A. No.498 of 2006 -2-
Ext.A5 unregistered notice. Exts.A1 and A2 revealed
that the Muvattupuzha municipality had in the year
1997 paid a value of Rs.74,062/- per cent for
properties having frontage of N.H.49 and for those
properties having no frontage of that road, the
municipality paid Rs.47,262/- per cent. Advocate
Commissioner on an inspection of the properties
reported that the acquired properties were superior to
the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2. The
Advocate Commissioner was examined as AW3.
Though she was forcefully cross examined by the
Government Pleader, we do not think that her credit
has been shaken. The learned Subordinate Judge did
not become inclined to place specific reliance on any of
the documents. We approve the action of the learned
Subordinate Judge in not having placed reliance on
L. A. A. No.498 of 2006 -3-
Exts.A3 and A5. But at the same time, we are of the
view that the learned Sub Judge could have placed
some reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 for the purpose of
determining the market value. In the instant case,
what the learned Judge has done is not to place
reliance on any document but to grant 30%
enhancement relying on the Commissioner’s Report
and the importance of the locality as revealed by that
report. We see it is on guess work that the present
enhancement of 30% is given. We have re-appraised
the evidence. According to us, relying on Exts.A1 and
A2 itself, the correct market value of the acquired
properties in these cases could have been re-fixed at
Rs.1,30,000/- per Are. We re-fix the land value of
acquired properties at Rs.1,30,000/- and allow the
appeal to that extent.
L. A. A. No.498 of 2006 -4-
2. It is need less to mention that the appellant
will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible
under law on the total enhanced compensation to
which he becomes eligible due to our re-fixation.
3. This appeal is allowed as above. Parties are
directed to suffer their costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P. Q. BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
kns/-