IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 602 of 2006()
1. MUHAMMED, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :14/11/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.Nos.602 & 604 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 14th November, 2008
JUDGMENT
These appeals pertain to acquisition in Varapetty Village for the
Varapetty Distributary of the M.V.I.P. The relevant notification under
Section 4(1) was dated 26.1.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2570/- per Are. Before the
reference court, the appellants relied mainly on Ext.A1 judgment in
LAR No.148/03 and Ext.A2 judgment in LAR No.115/03. The learned
Subordinate Judge did not place any reliance on Ext.A1 and in my
opinion also the learned Judge was justified in not placing reliance on
Ext.A1 since it was clear that Ext.A1 properties were much superior
to the properties involved in these cases and were acquired pursuant
to another notification under Section 4(1). Ext.A2 judgment, it was
noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge, was in respect of another
case of acquisition pursuant to the very same Section 4(1)
notification and for the same purpose. Thus, obviously Ext.A2
judgment was having probative value as far as these two cases were
concerned. In fact the learned Subordinate Judge was dealing with
three cases including these two cases. In the third case, namely, LAA
No.147/03, the learned Judge noticed that the rate of land value
LAA Nos.602 & 604/06 – 2 –
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimant was almost
equal to the rate of land value which had been awarded by the officer
to the party in Ext.A2 and on that basis the learned Judge became
inclined to grant the enhancement which the court had given under
Ext.A2, i.e., at the rate of Rs.4000/- per Are. In other words, the land
value of the properties involved in LAR No.147/03 was refixed as
Rs.15574/- per Are, thus awarding an enhancement of 34% to the
party in LAR No.147/03. But coming to these two cases, the learned
Subordinate Judge took the view that there was no comparison at all
between the properties involved in these two cases and the
properties involved in Ext.A2 case or for that matter the properties
involved in LAR No.147/03. Taking that view of the matter, the
learned Subordinate Judge answered the references in these two
cases approving the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has addressed me
very persuasively. My attention was drawn by the counsel for the
appellants to my own judgment in Raghava Poduval v. Special
Tahsildar (2004(3) KLT 261). Learned counsel submitted that the
acquisition in LAR No.147/03 and in these two cases were for the
LAA Nos.602 & 604/06 – 3 –
same purpose and pursuant to the very same Section 4(1)
notification. Therefore at least for the purpose of considering a claim
under Section 28A, the judgment in LAR No.147/03 and Ext.A2 will
be of relevance. Counsel submitted that there must be some
correlation between the values on different categories of properties
situated within the same local area. Even according to the Land
Acquisition Officer, the ratio between the value of the properties
involved in these cases and the properties involved in LAR No.147/03
was Rs.2570/- : Rs.11574/- per are. The reference court having
granted 34% enhancement to the properties in LAR No.147/03 would
have granted the same rate of enhancement to these properties also.
3. The learned Government Pleader would resist the
submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. However, the
learned Government Pleader had no answer to the argument of the
counsel for the appellants based on the judgment of this court in
Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (supra) that in a
proceeding under Section 28A, Ext.A2 as well as the judgment in LAR
No.147/03 can have relevance.
4. Having considered the submissions addressed before me and
the legislative objective underlying Section 28A, I feel that there is
LAA Nos.602 & 604/06 – 4 –
justification for granting reasonable enhancement to the appellants
also relying on the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge
himself in LAR No.147/03. I feel that interest of justice will be
adequately served if an enhancement at the rate of Rs.750/- per are
is granted to the acquired properties in these cases. Accordingly, I
allow both the appeals to the extent of enhancing the land value
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by Rs.750/- per are for the
acquired properties. Parties are directed to suffer their costs through
out.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE