IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1360 of 2005()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSEPH, S/O.KURIAKOSE, PAZHAYIDATHU,
... Respondent
2. VALSAMMA, W/O.JOSEPH, PAZHAYIDATHU,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :08/04/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No.1360 of 2005
------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
This appeal by the Government pertain to acquisition of land
in Muttom Village of Thodupuzha Taluk for the purpose of LIC
Aided Rural Water Supply Scheme. Relevant Section 4(1)
notification was published on 28/2/2000. The land acquisition
officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,378/- per cent.
The evidence before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to
A6, AW1 to AW4 and the commissioner’s report Ext.C1. There
was absolutely no counter evidence adduced by the State.
Ext.A1 properties are situated in Muttom itself, a semi urban
area, and it is not in dispute that the land value in the area had
been on the increase during the relevant time at a minimum rate
of 7.5% per year. Taking into account the increase in the land
value in the area due to passage of time, the market value
reflected in Exts.A1, A2 and A3 could be rightly fixed at
Rs.13,500/-, 38,937/- and Rs.13,359/- respectively on the date
L.A.A..No.1360/2005 2
of the relevant section 4(1) notification. The learned
Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place any reliance
on Exts.A2 and A3 on the reason that Ext.A2 and A3 was a
document executed in favour of a Society. We are at a loss to
understand why the learned subordinate Judge ignored Exts.A2
and A3 documents on the reason that they are executed in favour
of the Society. According to us, Exts.A2 and A3 also had some
relevance in determining the correct market value of the
property. Ext.A1 is a document executed in favour of the District
Panchayat. Though the learned Subordinate Judge observed in
the beginning, that the said document cannot also taken into
account, ultimately that document itself was taken into account
to arrive at the market value of the properties as Rs.12,155/- per
cent.
2. We feel that the correct market value of the properties
at the relevant time will be almost the average of the values
revealed in Exts.A1, A2 and A3. The amounts comes to about
Rs.22,000/-. At the same time, we find some force in the
submission of the learned Government Pleader that the acquired
L.A.A..No.1360/2005 3
property is having some minus factors. Taking into account
those minus factors, we fix the market value of the acquired
property at the relevant time as Rs.20,000/- per cent.
3. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal
preferred by the Government will stand dismissed. Cross
objection preferred by the claimants will stand allowed to the
extent of refixing the market value of the acquired property at
Rs.20,000/- per cent. It is needless to mention that the
respondents claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits
admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the
Land acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation to which they
become eligible on account of re-fixation as above.
4. Sri.Johnson Manayani, learned counsel for the cross
objector submits that the cross objector’s daughter is to be
married off and that the marriage is being put off on account of
shortage of funds. We accept the above submission and direct
the Government to facilitate payment of the enhanced
compensation redetermined under this judgment at the
earliest. It is ordered that in the circumstances of this case, the
L.A.A..No.1360/2005 4
parties will suffer their costs both in the appeal as well as in the
cross objection.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
dpk