IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 710 of 2008() ----------------------------------- LAR.185/1984 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS -------------------------------------- 1. V. GOPINATHAN NAIR, KAMAL VEEDU, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. V. RAGHUNATHAN NAIR, -DO-. 3. K. CHANDRAKUMARI, -DO-. 4. V. RAVEENDRAN, -DO-. 5. V. SREE KUMAR, -DO-. 6. V. MURALI KUMAR, -DO-. 7. V. VIPIN KUMAR, -DO-. 8. V. AJAYA KUMAR, -DO-. 9. V.K. SHAILAJA KUMARI, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, KOLLAM-691 013. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.P.N. SUMANGALA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 710 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th st day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the claimant is the judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Kollam. The acquisition was relating to a property situated in Sasthamcotta village for the purpose of Kallada Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer treated a portion of the property under acquisition to be commercial land and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,938/- per Are. The balance portion was treated by him as garden land and he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,197/- per Are. Before the Reference Court several documents were produced and the appellants placed reliance mostly on Exts.A1 and L.A.A. NO. 710 OF 2008 -:2:- A2 judgments. Ext.A1 judgment was in respect of acquisition pursuant to the notification some four months prior to the present notification. Ext.A1 was in respect of a property which was qualitatively inferior to both the properties under the acquisition in the present case. Under Ext.A1 land value was refixed at Rs.9,880/-per are. Ext.A2 was in respect of acquisition 3½ months subsequent to the present acquisition. The property under acquisition in Ext.A2 was comparable to the garden lands involved in this acquisition. Under Ext.A2 land value was refixed by the Court at Rs.14,820/-. The learned Subordinate Judge has discarded both Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 was discarded for the reason that the property under Ext.A1 is inferior to the acquired property. Ext.A2 is discarded for the reason that the enhancement granted is 250% of what was awarded by the Land L.A.A. NO. 710 OF 2008 -:3:- Acquisition Officer and also on the reason that the comparability is not proved. 2. Sri.B. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant addressed before us arguments in detail based on various grounds and submitted that Exts.A1 and A2 should have been relied upon and the market value be determined accordingly. Smt.Sumangala, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned judgment is uncomparable for the various reasons stated therein. Apart from the oral evidence and Exts.A1 and A2 there was no evidence to prove the comparability between the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 and the property under acquisition. 3. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in discarding Exts.A1 and A2 for L.A.A. NO. 710 OF 2008 -:4:- determining market value of the lands under acquisition. After all properties Exts.A1 and A2 were situated in the same village and there was controverted evidence of PW1 to the effect that the distance between those properties and property under acquisition was not much. We are of the view that relying on Exts.A1 and A2 enhanced market value could have been redetermined on the basis of our re-appraisal of the evidence from Exts.A1 and A2 and we become inclined to refix the market value of properties which were treated as commercial properties by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.14,500/- per Are. Similarly, we are inclined to refix the market value of properties treated as garden land by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.12,500/- per are. Allowing the appeal we refix the value of the lands for the which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.4,938/- per L.A.A. NO. 710 OF 2008 -:5:- Are at Rs.14,500/- per Are. Similarly, for the lands for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,197/- per Are we refix the amount at Rs.12,500/- per Are. The appeal is allowed as above. The claimant will be entitled to all statutory benefits which are provided under Sections 23 (2), 23(1A) and S.28 of Land Acquisition Act on the total refixed compensation. The parties shall suffer their respective costs. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [ True copy ] P.S. to Judge. .