IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1071 of 2007()
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FR.JACOB NJERINJAMPILLY, C.M.I.PRIYOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS
For Respondent :SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :04/09/2008
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------------------
L.A.A.NO. 1071 OF 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.
The appellant is the Secretary, Mullassery Grama Panchayat and is
the second respondent in L.A.R. No.126 of 2005 on the file of the Sub
Court, Thrissur. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree
dated 12.2.2007 in the said reference case. The reference court by the
impugned judgment enhanced the land value and refixed it at the rate of
Rs.24,975.25 per Are as against Rs.13,408/- per Are fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer. Challenging the land value fixed by the reference
court, the second respondent has come up in appeal.
2. The extent of property acquired is 0.1750 hectares comprised in
Survey No.76/9 of Annakara Village. The property was acquired for the
construction of Mini Industrial Training Centre at Mullassery. Section 4
(1) notification is dated 23.11.2001. It is the case of the claimant that the
acquired property is situated in an important locality, that it is suitable for
setting up commercial establishments and that it has more potential value
L.A.A.NO.1071/2007 2
than the property covered by the basic document. Besides the locational
importance of the property, it is further submitted that there are
cultivations with irrigation facilities. The claimant has also listed the
various commercial, public and private institutions situated in the locality
which, according to him, are very important. He claimed Rs.1,00,000/- per
cent with statutory benefits.
3. The respondents in the reference case denied the averments in the
statement filed by the claimant. According to the respondents, the land
value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is fair and reasonable and,
therefore, the claimant is not entitled to compensation more than what is
awarded.
4. Before the reference court, the claimant was examined as AW1.
and Exts.A1 to A5 were produced and marked on his side. On the side of
the respondents, the valuation officer was examined as RW.1 and Exts.R1
and R2 were marked. Ext.C1 is the commission report. The reference
court discussed the locational importance of the property and its nearness
to various commercial, public and private institutions. Ext.A1 sale deed
relied on by the claimant was rejected by the reference court finding that
the claimant has failed to establish that the said property is similar and
L.A.A.NO.1071/2007 3
similarly situated as that of the acquired property. The reference court
also discussed the documents produced as Exts.A2 to A4 and for the
reasons stated rightly held that those documents cannot be relied on for
the purpose of fixing the land value. The locational importance of the
property sworn to by AW.2, the Commissioner, was taken into
consideration by the reference court. On evidence, the court below held
that the acquired property is situated in a commercial centre and that
Ambadi Theatre, Ambady Hostel and other commercial institutions are
situated within a radius of 10-15 metres of the acquired property. The
reference court had also taken note of the fact, on admission by RW.1, that
the property mentioned in the basic document is not situated in a
commercial area.
5. For the purpose of fixing the market value of the property in the
absence of other evidence, the reference court took into consideration the
value shown in Exts.R1 and R2 documents. The reference court
considered the location of the acquired property, its potential value and
the use to which the acquired property is reasonably capable of being put
to and the further fact that it is lying adjacent to a main road and found it
just and reasonable to fix the market value by giving an enhancement of
75% from the market value in Ext.R1 document. Thus, the market value
L.A.A.NO.1071/2007 4
of the property was refixed at Rs.24,974.25 per Are. The fixation of land
value at the said rate is just, proper, reasonable and based on evidence
available on record. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the same.
In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs.
(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
sp/
L.A.A.NO.1071/2007 5
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
L.A.A. NO.1071/2007
JUDGMENT
4th September, 2008
L.A.A.NO.1071/2007 6