IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA App No. 620 of 2008(D)
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.SARDHAN, KARUNALAYAM,
... Respondent
2. SMT.MAHILAMANI, KARUNALAYAM,
3. DIRECTOR, INLAND WATER WAYS AUTHORITY
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :03/04/2008
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------------------
L.A.A. NO. 620 OF 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008
JUDGMENT
Haurn-Ul-Rashid, J.
The State of Kerala is the appellant. The decree and judgment dated
25.1.2007 in L.A.R. No.80 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court,
Mavelikkara granting enhanced compensation is under challenge in this
appeal.
2. The extent of land acquired is 46.50 Ares. Acquisition is for the
purpose of widening National Waterways No.III. Section 4(1) notification
was published on 30.5.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land
value at the rate of Rs.20,316/- per Are. The reference court by the
impugned judgment refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.31,777/- per
Are. The appellant contended before us that the land value awarded by
the Land Acquisition Officer is just, proper and reasonable and that the
reference court ought not to have enhanced the land value. The appellant
further contended that the reference court went wrong in placing reliance
on Ext.A1 sale deed as the property covered by Ext.A1 cannot be
L.A.A.NO.620/2008 2
compared with that of the acquired land and also for the reason that there
is no positive evidence adduced by the claimants to show that the
properties are similar and similarly situated.
3. The first claimant was examined as AW.1. Ext.A1 is the
certified copy of the sale deed. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the commission
report and mahazar which were relied on by the claimants in support of
their claim for enhancement of compensation. The locational importance
of the acquired land and its nearness to many important public and
commercial institutions is spoken to by the claimants and was dealt with
by the reference court in detail in paragraph 14 of the judgment. The
importance of the locality as spoken to by AW.1 is corroborated in Ext.C1
(a) mahazar. The reference court noticed the fact that the acquired land is
fairly a bigger plot of 46.50 Ares whereas the extent of the land covered by
Ext.A1 is only 12.05 Ares for which land value was fixed at Rs.48,780/-
per Are. On a comparison of both the properties, the reference court
rightly held that the land involved in Ext.A1 sale deed has much more
residential, commercial and industrial importance and potentialities than
the acquired land. At the same time, taking into account all the attending
circumstances including the nature, lie, locational importance and date of
Section 4(1) notification of the acquired land, the reference court held that
L.A.A.NO.620/2008 3
65% of the land value in Ext.A1 sale deed can be fixed as value of the
acquired land. The land value of the acquired land was thus refixed as
Rs.31,770/- per Are. The reference court also fixed an amount of
Rs.50,000/- as value of improvements, on proper evidence available on
record. We find that no grounds are made out to take a different view
from the view taken by the reference court. We agree with the reasoning
and findings of the reference court.
In the result, the appeal is without merit and it is accordingly
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
sp/
L.A.A.NO.620/2008 4
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
L.A.A. NO.620/2008
JUDGMENT
3RD APRIL, 2008