IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1386 of 2009()
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.P. RAPHAEL, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :14/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. Nos.1386 & 1388 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The Requisitioning Authority is in appeal.
The case pertains to acquisition of land in Tholoor
village of Thrissur district for the purposes of
construction of 33 KV sub-station at Parappur. The
land was dry land. The acquisition was pursuant to
Section 4(1) notification published on 15/02/2000.
The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at
the rate of Rs.10,588/- per Are. This was done on
the basis of the basis document. Before the
Reference Court, the evidence consisted of
Exts.A1 to A3, the oral evidence of AWs.1 and 2
L. A. A. Nos.1386 & 1388 of 2009 -2-
on the side of the claimants. AW2 was an
Advocate Commissioner who submitted Ext.X1
report. The solitary items of counter evidence on
the side of the Government and the Requisitioning
Authority was Ext.R1 certified copy of the basis
document. Even though the Advocate
Commissioner in Ext.X1 had recommended for
award of much higher value, the learned
Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to
accept such re-commendations. What the learned
Judge ultimately did was to rely on Ext.R1 basis
document itself noticing that there was passage of
two and a half years after Ext.R1 till date of
promulgation of Section 4(1) notification and re-
L. A. A. Nos.1386 & 1388 of 2009 -3-
fix the value at Rs.14,353.30/- per Are, thus
awarding an enhancement of roughly 23% over
what was awarded.
2. Several attractive grounds have been
raised in this appeal by the Requisitioning
Authority and the learned Standing Counsel for
the Requisitioning Authority has addressed very
strenuous and persuasive arguments based on
those grounds. The learned counsel submitted
that what the court below has done is to give
additions at the rate of 10% per year for passage
of time between the date of Ext.R1 and date of
Section 4(1) notification. According to the learned
Judge, Tholoor village was a rural area and
L. A. A. Nos.1386 & 1388 of 2009 -4-
additions per year at that rate is not at all
justified. The persuasiveness of the submission of
the learned counsel notwithstanding having
scanned the impugned judgment we find that
neither the appellant nor the Government can
have any legitimate grievance about the
impugned judgment. Significantly neither the
appellant nor the Government adduced even
formal oral counter evidence to the evidence
adduced on the side of the claimants. We are sure
that the rate of Rs.14,353.30/- per Are presently
fixed under the impugned judgment is not more
than the market value of the property at the
relevant time. Giving liberty to the appellant to
L. A. A. Nos.1386 & 1388 of 2009 -5-
resist the appeals, if any, preferred by the
claimants on the various grounds raised in this
appeal, we dismiss these appeals in limine.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-