IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 407 of 2002()
1. SUDHAKARAN K.K.,S/O.KUNJIKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
2. JAYASREE,D/O.SUDHAKARAN K.K.,
3. JYOTHISH S/O.KOLLAMPARAMBIL SUDHAKARAN,
4. JAISON S/O.KOLLAMPARAMBIL SUDHAKARAN,
5. JAYAKRISHNAN,S/O.KOLLAMPARAMBIL
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL
For Respondent :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :18/02/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.Nos. 407/2002 & 161/2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.
Claimants as well as the State have filed appeals against the
judgment in L.A.R.No.112/1998 of the Additional Sub Court,
Ernakulam. 1.49 Ares of dry land and 23.63 Ares of wet land
comprised in Elamkulam village is acquired for the purpose of
constructing ‘International stadium’ at Kaloor. The first claimant was
examined before the reference court as AW1. At the time of
acquisition, the entire land was remaining as dry land and was having
Ponoth road frontage, is the claim of AW1. It was also submitted that
the land is situated only 75 meters away from the National Highway
and it was having close proximity to very important public institutions.
According to AW1, the land had high commercial importance during
the relevant time. The claimants produced Exts.A1 to A3 Sale Deeds
and claimed refixation of the land value in accordance with the value
set forth therein.
LAA.No.407/02 & 161/03
2
2. The reference court found that the property covered by
Exts.A1 to A3 are not similar properties nor they are similarly situated.
It has come out in evidence that the property covered under Ext.A1 is
having frontage to National Highway, whereas the acquired property is
on the back side of the Stadium having frontage only to Ponoth Road.
It has come out in evidence that the properties covered under Exts.A2
and A3 are properties situated far away from the acquired property in a
highly commercially important area of M.G.Road at Ernakulam.
3. However, the reference court found that the classification
adopted by the land acquisition officer with respect to the wet land
portion is not justifiable. Relying on the Mahazer, it is found that both
the dry portion and wet portion formed a single block and the dry
portion had Ponoth Road frontage. Hence the reference court found it
proper to include the wet land portion in a separate category, rather
than including the same in category No.VI, which obviously is that of
wet lands having access only through path ways.
4. The reference court took note of the enhancement of
compensation awarded in L.A.R.No.50/1998 series cases, with respect
to lands acquired under the same notification. In L.A.R.No.50/98, the
LAA.No.407/02 & 161/03
3
land value with respect to IVth category was enhanced from Rs.64,900/-
per Are to Rs.82,296/- per Are. Taking note of the above fact, the
value for dry land which is included in Vth category is refixed by
making a 10% cut thereof. The reference court fixed land value for the
wet land by allowing a 45% cut on the value fixed for the Vth category
of land. Thus, for the dry portion enhancement at the rate of
Rs. 16866/- per Are, and for the wet portion enhancement at the rate of
Rs. 16136/- per Are, was allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Claimant vehemently
contended that Ext.A1 document is with respect to a property which is
situated in front of the acquired property and the same ought to have
been considered as basis for refixing the value. Considering the
reasoning rendered by the reference court that, the property covered
under Ext.A1 is having frontage to National Highway and the same is
not similar or similarly situated, we are not in a position to accept the
said argument. Admittedly, properties under Exts.A2 and A3 are
situated far away from the acquired property at a place having much
commercial importance. Hence we feel that the basis at which the
reference court refixed the land value is quiet reasonable and
LAA.No.407/02 & 161/03
4
acceptable.
6. Learned counsel also contended that, having regard to the
fact that the acquisition is made for constructing “International
Stadium”, the enhancement should have been allowed more liberally,
the purpose of acquisition being one could not be termed as
” socialistic purpose”. We are afraid, whether we can entertain such a
contention in view of the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of
the Land Acquisition Act, which prohibits taking into consideration of
the purposes of acquisition in order to determine valuation of the
acquired properties.
On an over all scanning of the impugned judgment, we feel that
the valuation refixed by the reference court is quite adequate and
reasonable. Hence both the appeals are dismissed. Parties will bear
their respective costs.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
sv.
LAA.No.407/02 & 161/03
5