IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 25 of 2010()
1. RAMAN NAIR RAVINDRAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :30/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. Nos.1510 of 2009 & 25, 339 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The claimants are in appeal. Their wet lands
in Kaduthuruthy village were acquired for the
purpose of construction of Government Poly
Technic at Kaduthuruthy. The relevant Section 4
(1) notification was published on 04/11/03. The
Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the
rate of Rs.926/- per Are. Before the Reference
Court, the claimants adduced evidence and Ext.A1
document in LAR.160/05 corresponding to
LAA.1510/09 and Ext.C1 commission report were
the two items which were relied on mostly by the
L. A. A. No.1510 of 2009 & con. cases -2-
claimants. Ext.A1 was a sale deed dated
15/07/02. A copy of Ext.A1 is handed over to us
by Sri.Francis Joseph Kurisunkal, the learned
counsel for the appellant. Even though
Sri.Kurisunkal submitted that Ext.A1 relates to
wet lands, having gone through Ext.A1 we are not
in a position to accept his submission. We hold
that Ext.A1 relates to reclaimed land. Ext.A1
reveals land value of Rs.7,407/- per Are. But as
already stated, the acquired property unlike
Ext.A1 property was only wet land. The appellant
did not produce any document pertaining to wet
lands reflecting value higher than what is awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer. Under Ext.C1
Commissioner reported that the acquired property
and the property covered by Ext.A1 are
L. A. A. No.1510 of 2009 & con. cases -3-
comparable. The learned Subordinate Judge
rejected the Commission Report saying that the
Commissioner inspected the property four years
after the relevant date. We are in a position to
approve the action of the learned Subordinate
Judge in having discarded the Commission Report
and hold that the report cannot be relied on to
hold that the property under acquisition and the
property in Ext.A1 are similar. At the same time,
we notice that the property covered by Ext.A1 was
also acquired by the Government for the very
same purpose. We gather that the above,
property was treated as reclaimed land and a
higher rate was granted. Even though Ext.A1
pertains a different type of land, we feel that the
market value for reclaimed lands reflected in
L. A. A. No.1510 of 2009 & con. cases -4-
Ext.A1 has some bearing on the correct market
value of wet lands. Keeping the above aspect in
mind and making a re-assessment of the entire
evidence ignoring the oral evidence adduced by
the parties and Ext.C1 report, we are of the view
that the market value of the land under
acquisition can be reasonably re-fixed at
Rs.2,525/- per Are. Accordingly, we re-fix the
market value of the land under acquisition at
Rs.2,525/- per Are. This means that for the land
under acquisition, the appellants will get
Rs.1,001/- per Are more than what is awarded to
them by the Land Acquisition Court. The appeal
will stand allowed as above. The appellants will be
entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under
Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of
L. A. A. No.1510 of 2009 & con. cases -5-
the Land Acquisition Act. While drafting the
decree, the Section will have due regard to the
conditions imposed by this Court in the orders
condoning the delay caused in the matter of fling
the appeals. Parties are directed to suffer their
respective costs. Registry will issue certified
copies of the decree to the appellants only after
ensuring that full court fee is remitted.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGEM. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS
JUDGE
kns/-