High Court Kerala High Court

The Secretary vs Jose on 12 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
The Secretary vs Jose on 12 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA App No. 1098 of 2002()


1. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOSE, S/O. KURIAKOSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :12/12/2007

 O R D E R
            KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ.
           ----------------------------------------------------------------
              L.A.A. NOS.1098 OF 2002 & 1432 OF 2007
           ----------------------------------------------------------------

                 Dated this the 12th day of December, 2007

                                  JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.

These are appeals filed by the Requisitioning Authority and the

claimant respectively. Acquisition was for the purpose of widening of

Pattalam road. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at

Rs.1,45,400/- per Are. Section 4(1) notification is dated 6.2.1996. The

reference court on the basis of the undisputed importance of the acquired

property and the commercial importance of the area, as referred to in

paragraph 8 of the judgment, and the further finding that the land value

given to the neighbouring property covered by L.A.R. 11 of 2000 can be

given for the instant case, fixed land value at Rs.1,71,170/- per Are. It is

brought to our notice that the land value fixed in L.A.R. 11 of 2000 has

become final. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal

filed by the Requisitioning Authority so far as fixation of market value is

concerned.

2. As far as the case of the claimant is concerned, he mainly relied

LAA NOS.1098/02 & 1432/07 2

on Ext.A1 document which pertains to a transaction whereby 19 cents of

property was conveyed for an amount of Rs.80 lakhs. That transaction

was prior to Section 4(1) notification. The reference court, while

discussing the acceptance of the evidence tendered on the basis of Ext.A1

document and by the Advocate Commissioner who reported about the

similarity of Ext.A1 with that of the acquired property, observed that the

Advocate Commissioner in L.A.R. No.11 of 2000 had reported that the

property covered by Ext.A1 document was not comparable with the

acquired land in that case. The acquired property in L.A.R. 11 of 2000,

according to the reference court, lies near to the acquired property in this

case. Therefore, on the basis of the report of the Advocates Commissioner

in L.A.R. 11 of 2000, the reference court declined to consider the evidence

of the claimant in this case. We are afraid, the stand taken by the

reference court cannot be justified. The Advocate Commissioner in

L.A.R. No.11 of 2000 was not examined in this case. That report also was

not before the court. There is no evidence on the part of the respondents to

show that the acquired property is not similar or comparable with that of

the property covered by Ext.A1 whereas the claimant has tendered

evidence regarding the similarity and comparability of Ext.A1 property

with the acquired property. There is also Ext.X1 commission report.

LAA NOS.1098/02 & 1432/07 3

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipality submits that

Ext.A1 property lies on the side of the Post Office road whereas the

acquired property is on the Pattalam road and there is vast difference in

the importance of the locality. This aspect is disputed by counsel for the

claimant. Be that as it may, since there is no basis for rejecting the

evidence of the claimant in this case, the claim of the appellant for

enhancement of compensation has to be considered afresh.

Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree in L.A.R.

No.13 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur and

remand the matter to the reference court. The parties shall appear before

the reference court on 14.1.2008. It will also be open to the parties to

adduce fresh evidence. The reference shall be answered within another

four months. In view of the remand as above, the appellant in L.A.A.

No.1432 of 2007 will be entitled to refund of the court fee.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)

sp/

LAA NOS.1098/02 & 1432/07 4

KURIAN JOSEPH &
HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

L.A.A.NOS.1098/02 &
1432/2007

JUDGMENT

12TH DECEMBER, 2007