IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 176 of 2007(D)
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NEELAKANTA KAIMAL, S/O. RAYAKAIMAL,
... Respondent
2. REGHUNATHAN KAIMAL, S/O. NEELAKANTA
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :06/08/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.Nos.176, 363 & 515 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 6th August, 2008
JUDGMENT
These three appeals by the Government pertain to acquisition
of land in Manakkad village for the purpose of widening of
Thodupuzha-Ramamangalam road pursuant to a notification under
Section 4(1) dated 18.8.1999. The land acquisition officer would fix
land value at the rate of Rs.11291/- per cent which was enhanced by
the reference court to Rs.33,350/- per cent. The evidence before the
reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to A4 and Ext.C1 Commissioner’s
report apart from the oral evidence of A.W.1 on the side of the
claimant-respondent. On the side of the appellant the evidence
consisted of Exts.R1 to R6, copies of the detailed valuation
statements and mahazars relating to the acquisition. No counter oral
evidence was adduced by the Government. Exts.A1 to A3 were post
notification sale deeds. Even the Advocate Commissioner who had
prepared Ext.C1 had reported that there is no comparison between
the acquired properties and the properties covered by Exts.A1 to A3.
The learned Subordinate Judge therefore rightly ignored Exts.A1 to
A3 from the reckoning for determining the market value of the
properties. Ext.A4 was a sale deed dated 22.3.1997 and the same
LAA Nos.176, 363 & 515/07 – 2 –
was executed more than two years prior to the relevant Section 4(1)
notification. Ext.A4 was executed in favour of the Tribal Welfare
Department of the Government. Ext.A4 property was found correctly
by the learned Subordinate Judge to be situated in an interior part of
the Thodupuzha municipal town. It was found that compared to
Ext.A4, the acquired properties were far more superior. Ext.A4
reflected a land value of Rs.29,000/- per cent. The court below found
that in another case LAR No.16/01 the court had granted
enhancement of 15% and relied on Ext.A4 and granted increase on
the value revealed by Ext.A4 taking into account the passage of time.
The court below virtually followed the decision in LAR No.16/01 and
refixed the land value for the acquired properties above 15% of the
value reflected in Ext.A4 and would refix land value at Rs.33,350/-.
Having considered the submissions of the learned Government
Pleader and those of Mr.K.K.Chandran Pillai, counsel for the claimants
and having gone through the judgment of the reference court and
having reappreciated the evidence before the court below, I am of
the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was very reasonable in
his approach and has awarded the correct market value which would
have been paid by a willing purchaser to a willing seller at the
LAA Nos.176, 363 & 515/07 – 3 –
relevant time. The only question to be considered is whether the
judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in LAR No.16/01 has
attained finality. The Registry reports that L.A.A.No.729/04 filed by
the Government against LAR No.16/01 was dismissed and another
L.A.A. filed by the claimant is posted as “to be spoken to”. Since it is
clear that the appeal filed by the Government against LAR No.16/01
has been dismissed, these appeals can be proceeded with as though
the enhancement granted as per LAR No.16/01 has attained finality
from the Government’s point of view. The result is that I do not find
any infirmity in the judgment of the reference court. All the appeals
will stand dismissed.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE