IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 2010 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.P.ABDUL RAHEEM, BARKOOL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. V.P.ABDUL RASHEED, BARKOOL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :30/11/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------
LAA. No. 2010 of 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The Government is in appeal, being aggrieved by the
re-fixation of compensation for the property which was
acquired for the purpose of extension of road from lorry
stand to the Arabind Ghosh Road. The property was
situated in Nagaram Village within the area of the Kozhikode
Corporation. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was
published on 28-6-1993. The Land Acquisition Officer
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.29,649.85 per cent.
The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1,
a post notification document and the oral evidence of PWs. 1
to 3. On the side of the respondents, the same consisted of
Ext.B1 copy of the basis document and the oral evidence of
RW1. Apart from that, two commissioners’ reports were also
marked as Exts.C1 and C2. The court below re-fixed the
LAA. No. 2010/08
– 2 –
land value at Rs.1,00,000/- per cent.
2. We have heard the submissions of Smt.
P.N.Sumangala, learned Govt. Pleader. Even though
respondents were served with notice there was no
appearance for them. Smt. Sumangala argued that it is
relying on Ext.A1, a document which was six years
subsequent to the notification under section 4(1) that the
court below granted enhancement to the respondents.
According to her, when Ext.B1 basis document was there
the court below should not have relied on a post notification
document. In this regard Smt. Sumangala relied on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas
Corn. Ltd. v. R.Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. 2008 SAR (Civil) 894.
3. We have considered the submissions of the learned
Govt. Pleader. It is not correct to say that it is relying on
Ext.A1 alone that the court below granted enhanced
compensation to the respondents. C1 and C2 reports were
LAA. No. 2010/08
– 3 –
of clear indication to the fact that the property under
acquisition was situated very near to various important
junctions, institutions and establishments within the area of
the Kozhikode Corporation, the biggest city in the erstwhile
Malabar District. The oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 was also
convincing. There was justification for granting
enhancement. At the same time, we are in agreement with
the learned Govt. Pleader who submitted that at any rate,
the enhancement granted is excessive. We take into
account our own judgments in other cases pertaining to
acquisition of land in Kozhikode and re-fix the value of the
land under acquisition at Rs.90,000/- per cent in
modification of the rate fixed by the reference court.
The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. It is
needless to mention that the respondents will be entitled for
all statutory benefits admissible under sections 23(2), 23
(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced
LAA. No. 2010/08
– 4 –
compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this
judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their costs in
this appeal.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
ksv/-