IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA App No. 477 of 2002(D)
1. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR.C.R.ANTONY,
... Respondent
2. FRANKLIN GEORGE,
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO
For Respondent :SRI.WILSON URMESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :08/10/2007
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
L.A.A. NOs. 477 & 651 OF 2002
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
Kurian Joseph, J.
These are appeals filed by the requisitioning authority as
well as the claimants respectively against the judgment and
decree in L.A.R. No. 19/1999 on the file of the Sub Court,
Thrissur. Acquisition is for the purpose of widening of Pattalam
road and construction of a shopping complex by the Thrissur
Municipality.
2. According to the claimants, the property covered by
Exhibit A1 is a transaction of sale on the main road and
compared to that property, the acquired property is better and
more valuable. According to the requisitioning authority, the
Land Acquisition Officer having fixed the land value on the basis
of the basic document and such fixation being just and proper,
the reference court is not justified in enhancing the
compensation.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation in
this case at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per cent, which has been
L.A.A. 477 & 651/02 2
enhanced to Rs. 1 lakh per cent. There appears to be no serious
dispute as to the locational importance of the acquired property.
It is within 50 metres from the Thrissur Corporation Office,
equally distanced to Puthenpally and just 10 metres away from
the Head Post-office. Thus it is in the real heart of the town.
4. The basic document is wet land and hence the reference
court is justified in rejecting the fixation made by the Land
Acquisition Officer and adopting its own method. While so, the
question is whether just and proper fixation has been made by
the reference court. The learned counsel for the claimants
vehemently contended that Exhibit A1 should have been relied on
by the reference court, particularly in view of the claim made by
the claimants at the rate of Rs. 8 lakh per cent.
5. It is further submitted that other transactions
contemporaneously made would also show that the land value
fixed by the reference court is not proper. It is seen from the
judgment, however, that the court refused to follow Exhibit A1
since no evidence was available to prove the circumstances under
which A1 was executed. Moreover, there was also an old building
in the said property and the composite value is shown as
Rs. 4 lakhs for the property and the building. The claimants pray
L.A.A. 477 & 651/02 3
that in the interest of justice they may be granted a further
opportunity before the reference court to establish the correct
land value of the property at the time of acquisition.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions taken by the
requisitioning authority as well as the claimants, we are of the
view that it is only in the interest of justice that an opportunity is
given to the parties before the reference court to have the land
value correctly fixed.
Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree in
L.A.R. No. 19/1999 and remit the matter to the reference court.
Parties will appear before the reference court on 19.11.2007 and
thereafter the cases will be disposed of within a period of another
four months. It will be open to the parties to adduce fresh
evidence. In view of the remand as above, the appellants shall
be entitled to refund of the court fee.
KURIAN JOSEPH
JUDGE
HARUN-UL-RASHID
JUDGE
smp
L.A.A. 477 & 651/02 4
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
L.A.A. NO. 477 & 651 OF 2002
J U D G M E N T
08.10.2007