IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1358 of 2008(D)
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION,
Vs
1. G.RAVEENDRAN, SUSEELA MANDIRAM,
... Respondent
2. R.MANIKANDAN, SUSEELA MANDIRAM,
3. R.MOHANKUMAR, SUSEELA MANDIRAM,
4. R.GOPAKUMAR, SUSEELA MANDIRAM,
5. S.MINI, SUSEELA MANDIRAM, KAZHAKKULAM,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.D.SAJEEV
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :23/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No. 1358 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Heard the learned Government Pleader for the
appellants and Sri.D.Sajeev, learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents.
2. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition
of land in Venganoor Village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification
published on 25/3/2002. The land acquisition officer included
the acquired property in category B and awarded land value at
the rate of Rs.52237/- per Are. The evidence before the
reference court, on the side of the claimants, consisted of Ext.A1
judgment, Ext.A2 sale deed, Ext.C1 commission report and oral
testimony of AW1 and on the side of the respondent the same
consisted of Exts.R1 to R3. The commissioner was examined as
CW1. The court below, on an evaluation of the evidence found
that, the acquired property was eligible to be included in
category A for which the land acquisition officer granted
L.A.A..No.1358/2008 2
Rs.75467- per Are.
3. It is fairly conceded by the learned Government Pleader
that for the properties included by the land acquisition officer in
category A, the reference court has granted enhancement and
refixed land value at Rs.1,50,000/- and such refixation has been
approved by this court in other cases. According to the
Government Pleader, the court below was not justified in
including the acquired property in category A because one of the
essential pre requisites for inclusion of property in category A is
that the property should be close to the Kovalam Junction, but
this property was situated away from Kovalam Junction.
Sri.Sajeev, learned counsel for the claimants would justify the
impugned judgment on the various reasons stated therein.
4. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed
at the Bar. We have gone through the commissioner’s report,
notes to award and the oral evidence adduced in the case
including that of the commissioner-CW1. On our re evaluation
of the evidence, it appears to us that the court below was not
justified in including the acquired property in category A.
L.A.A..No.1358/2008 3
However, evidence will certainly show that this property was
superior to the properties in category B. It should be noticed
that there was no objection filed to the commission report by
the Government and no counter oral evidence was adduced on
the side of the Government. The commission report will reveal
that though the acquired property was having atleast some of
the qualifications for eligibility for inclusion in category A, that
property was not situated near to Kovalam Junction. We are of
the view that, considering the superiority of the acquired
property over the properties in category B, the market value of
the acquired property should be fixed at Rs.1,25,000/- per Are.
We, therefore, allow this appeal to that extent, set aside the
impugned judgment and refix the market value of the acquired
property at Rs.1,25,000/- pr Are.
5. It is needless to mention that the respondents claimants
will be eligible for all statutory benefits admissible under Section
23(2), 23(!A) and Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act for the
total enhanced compensation which becomes eligible to them by
virtue of our refixation under this judgment.
L.A.A..No.1358/2008 4
The appeal is allowed to the above extent, but in the
circumstances, parties will suffer their respective costs.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk