IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 223 of 2001()
1. PIOUS THOMAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :31/03/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.223 of 2001
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The claimants are in appeal. Their property in
Kidangoor village was acquired pursuant to
section 4(1) notification published on 24/09/93 for
the purpose of upgradation of the Ettumanoor-
Erattupetta state highway. The Land Acquisition
Officer awarded land value at the rate of
Rs.6072/- per cent corresponding to Rs.15,000/-
per Are. Before the Reference Court, claimant
relied mostly on Exts.A1 and A3 sale deeds.
Ext.A1 sale deed was dt.15/05/05 in respect of
seven cents of land and an old building. The
L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -2-
learned Subordinate Judge did not place any
reliance on Ext.A1 due to the following reasons:-
1) Ext.A1 is a post notification document.
2) On the property covered by Ext.A1, there
existed a building which is not separately valued.
3) Ext.A1 property was un-comparably
smaller in extent.
2. Ext.A3 was a pre-notification document in
respect of an extent of 10.5 cents of land
reflecting a land value of Rs.90500/- per cent.
Ext.A3 was rejected by the Reference Court on the
reason that neither of the parties to Ext.A3 was
examined as a witness. The court below ultimately
relied on Ext.A4 judgment also produced by the
appellants and granted a proportionate
enhancement and re-fixed the value at
L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -3-
Rs.32,000/- per Are corresponding to Rs.12,950/-
per cent.
3. In this appeal, the claimants have raised
various grounds challenging what is described as
the gross inadequacy in the market value
determined by the court. Sri.Mathew John (K), the
learned counsel for the appellants addressed very
strenuous arguments before us on the basis of the
grounds raised. He drew our attention to Exts.A1
and A3. According to him, though Ext.A1 is a post
notification document, nobody can have a case
that it is an artificial price that has been shown in
Ext.A1. Ext.A1, he submitted is on the basis of the
public auction conducted by the local Church.
Ext.A1 document does show the existence of a
building, but according to the learned counsel, the
L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -4-
building had practically no value since it was old
and dilapidated. According to him, the proper
course to be done is to deduct a small portion
from the value reflected in the document towards
value of the building and to make reasonable
deductions for the passage of time between the
date of document and the date of section 4(1)
notification.
4. The learned counsel submitted that at any
rate, Ext.A3 could have been relied on. Drawing
our attention to 51A of the Act, counsel submitted
that it was not even suggested to PW1 during
cross examination that Ext.A3 is a document
brought into existence with any oblique motives.
5. Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned
senior Government Pleader would resist the
L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -5-
submissions of Mr.Mathew. According to her,
Ext.A4 was also a document strongly relied on by
the appellants and the court below cannot be
blamed in not relying on Ext.A4. The reasons
stated by the court below in not relying on Exts.A1
to A3 is quite reasonable.
6. We have very anxiously considered the
rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The duty
of the Reference Court is to evaluate the evidence
and find the correct market value of the property
at the relevant time i.e. determine the value
which a willing seller will receive from a willing
purchaser. When the considerations which are
relevant for determination of market value in land
acquisition reference cases are kept in mind, we
feel that the court below was not justified in
L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -6-
completely discarding Exts.A1 and A3, particularly
Ext.A3. It is true that no party to Ext.A3 was
examined as a witness. But Ext.A3 was marked in
view of section 51A through the first appellant. It
was not suggested to AW1 in cross examination
that Ext.A3 does not record a genuine transaction.
We rely on Ext.A3 and to a certain extent on
Ext.A1 and re-fix the market value of the land
under acquisition at Rs.90,000/- per cent.
7. The appeal will stand allowed to the above
extent. The appellants will be entitled for all
statutory benefits admissible under sections 23
(2), 23(1A) and under section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act on the total enhanced
compensation to which they become eligible by
virtue of this judgment. Parties are directed to
L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -7-
suffer their respective costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-