IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1208 of 2002()
1. THE SECRETARY, PAYYOLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O.M.BHASHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VATHSALAN
For Respondent :SRI.B.KRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :26/05/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.Nos.1208,1308, 1916, 1918/2002& 325/2003 ..
------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
All these appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Payyoly
town for the establishment of a new bus stand -cum- shopping
complex for the Payyoly Grama Panchayat and relate to land
acquisition reference cases(L.A.R.Nos.25/00, 26/2000 &
29/2000). L.A.A. Nos.1208/02 and 1308/2002 are directed
respectively against the judgments and decree in L.A.R.
Nos.26/2000 & 25/2000 and are filed by the Panchayat –
requisitioning authority. L.A.A. Nos.1916/2002, 1918/2002 and
325/2003 are directed respectively against the judgments and
decree in 26/2000, 25/2000 and 29/2000 and are filed by the
claimants. The last date of publication of the relevant notification
under Section 4(1) was 24/1/1997. The land acquisition officer
classified the properties as garden lands and wet lands and
awarded Rs.7265/- per cent and Rs.4984/- per cent respectively
for garden lands and wet lands. The reference court tried all the
L.A.A..No.1208/02 & CONN.CASES 2
reference cases jointly and evidence on the side of the
claimants consisted of documents Exts.A1 to A3 and oral
testimonies of witness AWs-1 to 4. On the side of the
respondents – requisitioning authority and the Government, the
same consisted Exts.R1 to R3 and the testimonies of RW-1 and
RW2. The report submitted by the commissioner, who conducted
local inspection of the properties and compared the acquired
property with the properties covered by Exts.A1 to A3, was
Ext.C1.
2. Ext.A1 sale deed pertain to sale of 17 cents of land on
27/9/1995 in favour of Indian Oil Corporation and the centage
value reflected in Ext.A1 is Rs.41,500/-. Ext.A1 property is
situated about 1.5 k.m. away from the acquired property.
Exts.A2 was another sale document dated 20/3/1993 revealing
centage value of 16,779/-. Ext.A3 was a document executed
between the claimant in L.A.R. No.29/2000 and the claimant in
L.A.R. Nos.25 & 26/2000 on 9/11/1995. Ext.A3 pertains to two
cents of land and revealed centage value of Rs.50,000/-. The
advocate commissioner in Ext.C1 reported that the acquired
property was situated in the heart area of the Payyoly town and
L.A.A..No.1208/02 & CONN.CASES 3
was more important and valuable than the property covered by
Ext.A1. She would ultimately recommend the value of
Rs.42,000/- per cent for garden lands under acquisition and
would also recommend value of Rs.12,500/- per cent for wet
lands under acquisition.
3. The reference court on an evaluating the evidence would
fix the value of garden lands at the rate of Rs.15,000 per cent
and that of wet lands at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent. In the
appeals preferred by the claimants, they contend that the rate
fixed by the reference court is far below the market value of the
properties at the relevant time and in the appeals preferred by
the Panchayat it is contended that the rates currently fixed by the
reference court are excessive.
4. We have heard the submissions of Sri.B.Krishnan,
learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri.C.Vathsalan,
learned counsel for the requisitioning authority. The learned
counsel would make submissions on the basis of the grounds
raised in the respective memorandum of appeal preferred by
their parties.
5. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions
L.A.A..No.1208/02 & CONN.CASES 4
addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the entire evidence
and made a thorough reappreciation of the evidence. We are of
the view that the court below was not justified in completely
discarding Ext.A1 and commissioner’s report Ext.C1. The
appreciation of the evidence by the reference court is not
completely satisfactory. Ext.A1 document was in respect of
fairly large extent of land and was a pre notification document.
The centage value reflected in Ext.A1 is considerable. But,
Ext.A1 property was situated in a more important area than the
acquired property. According to us, Ext.A1 and Ext.C1 could
have been relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge and the
correct market value of the acquired property could have been
arrived at by making appropriate deductions from the value
reflected in Ext.A1. The Panchayat did not file any objection to
the Commissioner’s report, it should be noticed.
6. On our re appreciation of the evidence, we come to the
conclusion that the correct market value of the acquired garden
land in these cases at the relevant time will come to Rs.25,000/-
per cent and the correct market value of the acquired wet land
will come to Rs.15,000/-.
L.A.A..No.1208/02 & CONN.CASES 5
7. The result is that L.A.A. Nos.325/2003, 1916/2002 and
1918/2002 preferred by the claimants will stand allowed.
L.A.A.No.1308/2002 and 1208/2002 preferred by the Panchayat
will stand dismissed. It is needless to mention that the appellants
claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible
under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation which
becomes admissible to them by virtue of our refixation of the
land value under this judgment.
The appeals are allowed as above. Parties are directed to
suffer their respective costs in this appeal.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk
L.A.A..No.1208/02 & CONN.CASES 6
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE &
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
————————
L.A.A.Nos.1208,1308, 1916,
1918/2002& 325/2003 ..
————————
JUDGMENT
26TH JUNE 2009