IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 447 of 2003()
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.HASHIM,KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. M.SHAJAHAN OF DO. DO.
3. M.FASALUDEEN, AYNIVILAKATHU VEEDU, DO.
4. M.USAFF,THERIKKATTU PUTHEN VEEDU,
5. M.JAMAL MUHAMMED, NAJEEB MANZIL,
6. A.ASHA BEEVI, NAJEEB MANZIL,
7. AMINA UMMAL, PALAVILA VEEDU,
8. SHEEJA BEEGUM, MEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,
9. M.M.HASHIM, T.K.HOUSE,PARAKKAPPARA,
10. K.ASUMA BEEVI,PARAYIL VEEDU,
11. P.JUMAIDA BEEVI,CHARIPPAN VILAKAM VEEDU,
12. M.ABDUL KARIM,KURAKKODU KUNNUMPURATHU
13. M.MUHAMMED,RESIDING AT DO.DO.
14. A.SULAIKA BEEVI,THERIKADU PUTHEN VEEDU,
15. S.SOUDA BEEVI, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU,
16. NABEESABEEVI,W/O. ABDUL KHARIM,
17. ABDUL RAHIM,S/O.MEERA SAYEER,
18. SUHARBAN BEEVI,CHARIVILAKATHU VEEDU,
19. ARIFA BEEVI,CHOONDU PALAKA,
20. ASHA BEEVI, OF DO. DO.DO.
21. ASUMA BEEVI, KUZHIVILAKATHU VEEDU,
22. SHARIFA BEEVI, OF DO. DO.
23. SAJITHA BEEVI, THANNIMMOODU,THOLIKADU,
24. NAZEER, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU,
25. P.SHEERA BEEVI,KUZHIVILAKATHU VEEDU,
26. SUBAIDA BEEVI, PULINCHIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
27. S.FATHIMA BEEVI,CHALIPPANVILAKATHY VEEDU
28. SHEREEFA BEEVI, PERUMALA PUTHEN VEEDU,
29. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.ABDUL RAHIM,
30. ABDUL NAZEER, S/O. ABDUL RAHIM OF DO.DO.
31. SHAJAHAN, S/L. ABDUL RAHIM OF DO.DO.
32. MUHAMMED SHAJITH, S./O. DO.DO.
33. NOUSHAD, S/O. OF DO.DO.
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.J.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :08/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.447 of 2003
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
This appeal preferred by the Government
pertains to acquisition of land in Nedumangadu village
for the purposes of establishment of E.E.C Market at
Nedumangadu. The relevant Section 4(1) notification
was published on 16/06/92. The Awarding Officer
categorised the properties under acquisition to
categories (A) to (F) on the basis of frontage/access of
of main road, edavazhy nearest to main road etc. For
properties in (A) category, the Land Acquisition Officer
has awarded land value at Rs.15,992/- per Are and for
other categories, he awarded land value at the rates
given below:-
L. A. A. No.447 of 2003 -2-
(B) category - Rs.12,794/-
(c) category - Rs.10,235/-
(d) category - Rs.9,211/-
(e) category - Rs.8,750/-/-
(f) category - Rs.7,438/-
The evidence before the Reference Court
consisted mainly of Exts.A4, A6, A7, A9, A12 and A14
judgments of the Nedumangadu Sub Court in respect
of the second phase of acquisition for the same
purpose. Thus, the properties in Exts.A4, A6, A7, A9,
A12 and A14 were properties lying adjacent to the
acquired properties in this case. The Nedumangadu
Sub Court, which had occasion to decide the cases
pertaining to acquisition of the second phase even
earlier than the impugned judgments were passed,
had granted 220% enhancement over the rates given
L. A. A. No.447 of 2003 -3-
by the Awarding Officer in those acquisitions which
were on the basis of Section 4(1) notification
published one year after the notification in this case.
In fact, in those judgments, the Sub Court had relied
on a document which is produced in those cases as
Ext.A1. Ext.A1 in those cases was a sale deed in
favour of LIC of India in respect of 10.5 cents of land
in Nedumangadu village situated very near to the
acquired properties in this case. Ext.A1 document
revealed the land value of Rs.44,000/- per cent. What
the Reference Court has done in Exts.A4, A6, A7, A9,
A12 and A14, was to award amounts lesser than the
rates reflected in Exts.A1 in those cases. It is not
difficult for us to hold that Exts.A4, A6, A7, A9, A12
and A14 had considerable probative value in these
cases since the properties were situated adjacently
L. A. A. No.447 of 2003 -4-
and the acquisition was for the same purposes though
one year later. The Reference Court rightly relied on
these judgments and granted proportionate increase
to the properties included in all the categories. Thus,
220% increase was given under the impugned
judgments over the rates awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer.
It is brought to our notice that the appeals
preferred by the Government against Exts.A4, A6, A7,
A9, A12 and A14 were dismissed by this Court by
judgments 06/10/04 and 01/07/05 respectively in
LAA.620/2000 and LAA.1561/2000 series. Copies of
those judgments are also produced before us for
perusal. Those judgments show that this Court
confirmed the enhancement given to the claimants
under Exts.A4, A6, A7, A9, A12 and A14 and allowed
L. A. A. No.447 of 2003 -5-
the cross objections filed by the claimants to the
extent of granting statutory benefit to the claimants.
Thus, Exts.A4, A6, A7, A9, A12 and A14 have attained
finality. In view of the finality attained by those
judgments, we do not find any ground for interfering
with the impugned judgments at the instance of the
Government.
The appeals preferred by the Government will
stand dismissed. No costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P. Q. BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
kns/-