IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1833 of 2007()
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Petitioner
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
Vs
1. ABOOBACKER, S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, GCDA, ERNAKULAM.
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :30/03/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.NOs.1833/2007 & 261 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.
These appeals by the Government pertains to acquisition for the
construction of Gosree bridge and approach roads thereto. The relevant
section 4(1) notification was published on 12/09/2001. The land
acquisition officer relying on Ext.B3 basis document awarded land
value at the rate of Rs.1,21,900/-. The reference court relying on the
evidence enhanced the land value to Rs. 1,70,000/- per Are. Similarly,
in L.A.R.No.19/03 corresponding to L.A.A.No.1833/07, the court
granted enhanced compensation for loss of earnings, towards
reconstruction of jetty and also towards construction of a retaining
wall which was lost to the claimant on account to the acquisition.
2. The learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the
requisitioning authority are certainly justified in submitting that
enhancement of the land value from Rs. 1,21,000/- to 1,70,000/- per
Are by the reference court is not based on any cogent legal evidence.
LAA.Nos. 1833/07 & 261/08 2
No document revealing the land value higher than the value revealed
by the basis document was produced by the claimants. But we find
that on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner’s report, the court took
notice that the property under acquisition were situated very near to
Kalamukku junction which has been an important junction on the
Vypin-Munambam road even before the emergence of Gosree bridges.
It was also noticed that properties had nearness to certain fishing
related industries. Apart from taking out a commission in the suit
which was filed by the party in L.A.R.No.19/03, in anticipation of the
land acquisition proceedings, the Commissioner who filed the report
was also examined as AW6. Though the judgment of the reference
court turns to a certain extent on guess work, we feel that it is more or
less a correct guess which has been made by the learned Subordinate
Judge having regard to the market value of the land in the locality at
the relevant time. We do not find any warrant for interfering with the
impugned judgment. These appeals will stand dismissed.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
M.C. HARI RANI
JUDGE
sv.
LAA.Nos. 1833/07 & 261/08 2