IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA App No. 787 of 2000(B)
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VALSAMMA THOMAS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :ADVOCATE GENERAL
For Respondent :SRI.JAMES KURIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :15/10/2007
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
L.A.A. Nos.787 & 1246 OF 2000
----------------------------------------------
Dated 15th October, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.
The above appeals arise from the judgments and
decrees dated 9.11.1999 and 28.3.2000 in LAR Nos.17/97 and
59/97 respectively on the file of the Sub Court, Pala. An extent of
12.60 Ares of dry land and 11.60 Ares of dry land involved in the
above LAR cases are acquired for the purpose of widening
Ettumanoor-Erattupetta road. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed
the land value at the rate of Rs.13,600/- per Are and Rs.15,185/-
per Are respectively in LAR Nos.17/97 and 59/97. The court
below enhanced and refixed the same at the rate of Rs.27,200/-
per Are and Rs.30,370/- per Are respectively.
2. In LAR 17/97, in support of the claim for
compensation, the claimant produced Exts.A1 to A4 documents
and examined AWs.1 to 7. The respondent produced Ext.R1. The
court below found that Exts.A1 to A4 documents are not
comparable to arrive at the compensation payable for the
acquired land, since those documents clearly show that the land
value awarded was higher than that awarded at the time of
LAA Nos.787 & 1246/2000
2
notification. After rejecting the claim on the basis of Exts.A1 to
A4, the court below proceeded to refix the land value by granting
cent percent enhancement without stating any reasons.
3. In LAR 59/97, the court below found that there is no
satisfactory evidence on record to prove the alleged advantages
and potentialities of the land except the highly self-serving
testimony of AW1 which cannot be relied upon for the above
purpose. After making such an observation, the court below
proceeded further and fixed the land value by granting almost
cent percent enhancement, stating that such an enhancement
was made in identical cases. We have noticed the fact that no
identical cases or judgments, or property similarly situated, for
which judgment was rendered was before the court for granting
cent percent enhancement. At any rate, no reference is made by
the court below about the cases in which cent percent
enhancement was granted.
4. In the above circumstances, we find that there is no
basis for the court below to grant cent percent enhancement
without any supporting evidence or datas to arrive at. Therefore,
we are of the view that the fixation of land value by the court
LAA Nos.787 & 1246/2000
3
below is not just and proper. Accordingly, the judgments and
decrees under appeal are set aside. The cases are remanded to
the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.
tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ
———————————————-
L.A.A. Nos.787 & 1246 OF 2000
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 15th October, 2007.