High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Csi Trust on 31 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Csi Trust on 31 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 582 of 2000(A)



1. STATE OF KERALA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. CSI TRUST
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :31/03/2009

 O R D E R
         PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
                     ------------------------
               LAA Nos.582/2000 & 351/2002
                     ------------------------

            Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009

                           JUDGMENT

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

Though these cases pertain to acquisition for different

purposes, since the properties are similar and we find that the

judgment which is impugned in L.A.A.582/2000 has been relied

on in L.A.A.351/2002, we are inclined to dispose them of by a

common judgment.

Having gone through the impugned judgments, we

find that the only item of evidence, on the basis of which the

learned Subordinate Judge refixed the market value of the

acquired properties at Rs.2 Lakhs, was the Advocate

commissioner’s report. The three sale documents put in

evidence by the claimants were of post notification documents.

The 4th one, a pre -notification document relating to a property

to which, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel, could not

have been made basis. The advocate commissioner has

certainly recommended that the market value of the property at

the relevant time was Rs.2,50,000/-. May be, the learned senor

LAA. No.582/2001 2

counsel is right in saying that having regard to the peculiar

location of the acquired properties in these cases, a document in

respect of a comparable property, a property which is exactly

similar is impossible. At the same time, determination of market

value by the land acquisition court considering the reference

under Section 18 has to be on the para metres set out in Section

3 of the Act 2 of 1965.

2. We have gone through the Advocate commissioner’s

report. The commissioner gives his recommendation not on the

basis of the value revealed in any sale documents. The report of

the commissioner, based solely on information orally conveyed

to him by the local people, could not have been made bases by

the reference court for refixing the market value at the rates

presently granted. Nevertheless, we are convinced that the basis

document relied on by the awarding officer is not relevant for

determining the market value of the acquired property since the

property covered by the basis document was not at all compared

with the acquired properties.

3. Having made a survey of the evidence including the oral

evidence adduced by the parties, we feel that the correct market

LAA. No.582/2001 3

value of the property at the relevant time was more than Rs.1

Lakh. At the same time, we leave the question of determining

the correct market value on the basis of the evidence to the

reference court itself.

The result is that the judgments under appeals are set

aside. The land acquisition reference cases are referred to the

land acquisition reference court. That court is directed to permit

both sides to adduce further evidence and to take a fresh

decision on the basis of the evidence which comes on record in

2009. While passing revised judgment, the reference court will

have due regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme

Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v.

Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008 SAR (Civil) 894 )

and will take into account post notification document only when it

becomes absolutely necessary. However, in view of our finding

that the market value at the relevant time is above Rs. 1 Lakh

per cent, there will be a direction to the respondents to deposits

50% of the amount payable under the decree , which is being

set aside less amounts already deposited within two months and

upon such deposits, the appellants will be entitled to withdraw

LAA. No.582/2001 4

such amounts.

The order of remand will become operative only if the

amounts as directed above is deposited by the appellants within

three months from today. If deposits are not made, the

impugned judgments will stand confirmed.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
dpk

LAA. No.582/2001 5

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE &
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.

————————

LAA Nos.582 OF 2000 & 351/2002

————————

JUDGMENT

31st APRIL 2009