IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1332 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.316/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENT NO.2 -------------------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAN, CHANDRA MANGALATHU VEEDU, KULATHOOR, ATTIPRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TECHNOPARK, KARIYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009 ALONG WITH LAA NOS.1955/08, 2478/08, 13/09, 88/09, 44/09 & 68/09, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.NOS.1332, 1955, 2478 OF 2008 13, 88, 44, 68 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. All these appeals filed by the Government pertains to acquisition of lands in Attipra village for the purpose of Technology Parks at Kazhakoottam in Thiruvananthapuram district. The composite notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 17/12/2003. The land acquisition officer categorised the lands into ten depending on the nature of the property - whether wet lands or dry lands and whether the properties are having frontage of National Highway bye-pass, PWD roads , any road frontage etc. etc. For properties in category 1, the land acquisition officer fixed land value at the rate of Rs. 52,834/- per cent corresponding to Rs. 1,30,500/- per Are. Similarly for properties in category 2, the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 42601/- per cent corresponding to Rs. 105224/- per Are. For other categories, the land acquisition officer fixed land value at given below rates: L.A.A.NOS.1332, 1955, 2478 OF 2008 13, 88, 44, 68 OF 2009 2 IV category - Rs. 11026/- per cent (Rs.27234/- per Are) V category - Rs. 10475/- per cent ( Rs. 25873/- per Are) VI category - Rs. 27691/- per cent ( Rs.68397/- per Are) VII category - Rs.7590/- per cent ( Rs.18747/- per Are) VIII category - Rs. 7274/- per cent ( Rs. 17976/- per Are) IX category - Rs. 6958 per cent ( Rs. 17186/- per Are) X category - Rs. 6325/- per cent ( 15623/- per Are) 2. The learned Subordinate Judge disposed of LAR.Nos. 432/05. 433/05, 471/05, 68/06, 85/06, 316/06, 323/06 and 326/06 by a common judgment dated 30-10-2007. By another common judgment dated 31/03/2008 learned Subordinate Judge disposed of L.A.R.No. 377/2005, 379/05, 325/06 and 295/2006. On the same date, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of LAR.Nos. 80/2006, 250/05, 347/05, 353/05, 420/05. The same learned Judge by another common judgment dated 17-01-2008 disposed of LAR.Nos. 376/05, 438/05, 464/05, L.A.A.NOS.1332, 1955, 2478 OF 2008 13, 88, 44, 68 OF 2009 3 69/06, 72/06, 79/06, 84/06, 298/06, 301/06, 310/06 and 1/07. By yet another common judgment dated 18-6-2006, the very same learned Judge disposed of LAR.Nos. 442/05, 54/06, 73/06, 75/06 and 324/06. L.A.A.No. 1332/08 arises from the judgment in LAR.Nos. 316/06. L.A.A.No.1955/2008 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No. 433/2005. L.A.A.No. 88/2009 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No.324/2006. L.A.A.No.44/2009 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No. 464/2005. L.A.A.No.13/09 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No. 69/06. LAA.No.2478/08 arises from the judgment in LAR.No. 377/05. LAA.No. 68/09 arises from the judgment in L.A.R.No. 310/06. 3. These seven appeals pertain to redetermination of market value by the reference court for properties included in category 10. For these properties the reference court refixed the land value at Rs. 1,04,400/- per Are. L.A.A.No. 389/09 pertains to judgment in L.A.R.No. 441/05 and interestingly in L.A.A.No. 377/05 corresponding to LAA.No. 2478/2008, the learned Sub Judge fixed land value at the rate of Rs. 148200/-, thus awarding much higher value L.A.A.NOS.1332, 1955, 2478 OF 2008 13, 88, 44, 68 OF 2009 4 than what was awarded by way of enhanced compensation in other cases within category 10. 4. L.A.A.No. 88/2009 pertains to L.A.R. No. 324/06 and this case involve properties which had been included in category 9 by the land acquisition officer. The reference court would refix the land value for these properties at Rs. 1,20,060/- per Are. L.A.A.No. 68/09 relates to LAR.No. 310/06 and this case involves properties in category 8. For these properties the reference court would refix the land value to Rs. 1,25,280/- per Are. In the same way, in LA.R.No.449/2005 involving lands in the same category corresponding to LAA.No. 316/2009, the same enhancement was granted by the reference court. 5. L.A.A.No. 44/2009 pertains to L.A.R.No.464/2005 and involves land in category 4. Similarly L.A.A.No.320/2009 pertains to L.A.R.No. 81/2006. This case also involves lands in category 4. For land in category 4, the learned Subordinate Judge would refix the land value at Rs. 109174/- per Are. L.A.A.No. 390/2009 corresponds to L.A.R.No. 350/2005 and these properties were included by the land L.A.A.NOS.1332, 1955, 2478 OF 2008 13, 88, 44, 68 OF 2009 5 acquisition officer in category No.1. For these properties, as against the award of Rs. 130500/- by the land acquisition officer, the reference court would fix Rs. 4,00,000/- per Are. L.A.A.No. 1955/2008 corresponds to LA.R.No. 435/2005 and it involves properties in category 3. For these properties the reference court would refix the land value at Rs. 128440/- per Are. 6. We have heard the submissions of the learned senior Government Pleaders Sri.Basant Balaji and Sri.P.K.Babu and those of Sri.P.A.Ahammed, learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel Smt.Hemalatha and the other learned counsel who have entered appearance for the claimants. Learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel for the requisitioning authority would assail the findings of the reference court. According to them, market values presently fixed under the impugned judgment are far in excess of the correct market value which prevailed in the locality during the relevant period namely the period of publication of Section 4(1) notification. L.A.A.NOS.1332, 1955, 2478 OF 2008 13, 88, 44, 68 OF 2009 6 They would submit that the reliance placed by the learned Subordinate Judge on Exts.A1 and A2- namely document No.2654/03 of SRO and 3293/03 of SRO of the same sub Registry was not at all justified. They would further submit that the reliance placed by the learned Sub Judge on Ext.A3 sale deed for determining the market value of the lands in category 4 and 3 was also not justified. According to them, perhaps Ext.A3 could have been relied on for determining the value of the best categories namely category 1 or 2. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant would support the impugned judgment on the reasons stated in the judgment itself. According to them, Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 were documents executed in usual course of business by the parties and those documents were not tainted in any manner. The courts below therefore was justified in placing reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 for fixing the market value of properties in category 10 and in making proportionate increase or decrease for properties in other categories. 8. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions L.A.A.NOS.1332, 1955, 2478 OF 2008 13, 88, 44, 68 OF 2009 7 addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the evidence and also the notes to award. It is seen that the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge turned mainly on his acceptance of Exts.A1 and A2. But Exts.A1 and A2 had been considered by the land acquisition officer during his award enquiry and were rejected on reasons which are apparently correct. The reasons were that the value shown in those documents were artificial and that those documents were got executed in anticipation of land acquisition proceedings so that a higher value could be claimed in the land acquisition proceedings. Exts.A1 & A2 were not properly proved before the reference court by examining the parties or any anybody who was acquainted with the documents. In the absence of any such document, learned Subordinate Judge should not have relied on Exts.A1 and A2 since notes to award had been put in evidence and it is settled by now that description of documents referred to in the notes to award given in those notes can be a valid items of evidence on the side of the Government. So also we find some force in the submission of the learned Government Pleaders as well as the L.A.A.NOS.1332, 1955, 2478 OF 2008 13, 88, 44, 68 OF 2009 8 standing counsel for the requisitioning authority that though Ext.A3 should have been relied on, but for determining the value of properties in a superior category. 9. Any how, we are not inclined to decide the issue finally. Sri.P.A.Ahmed, learned standing counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the claimants would make fervent submissions before us to pass an order of remand so that they get opportunity to prove Exts.A1 and A2 properly and also to produce other documents which according to them will reveal higher or lesser land value during the relevant time. Learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority as well as the learned Government Pleader submitted that in case this court is inclined to pass an order of remand, the same may be an open remand giving opportunity to all parties to adduce whatever evidence they have at their command. In the light of the above submissions, we are inclined to set aside the judgments and decrees and remand LAR Nos. 316/06, 433/05, 377/05, 69/06, 324/06, 464/05, 310/2006 back to the reference court. Accordingly, we set aside the L.A.A.NOS.1332, 1955, 2478 OF 2008 13, 88, 44, 68 OF 2009 9 judgments and decrees under appeal and remand LAR Nos. 316/06, 433/05, 377/05, 69/06, 324/06, 464/05, 310/2006 to the reference court. The reference court will post the LARs for evidence and will permit the claimants to adduce further evidence including the examination of parties connected to Exts.A1 and A2. If the claimants adduce further evidence, that court will permit the requisitioning authority and the State to adduce rebutal evidence. The reference court will complete the enquiry and will pass revised judgment on the basis of the entire evidence on record at the earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. L.A.A.NOS.1332, 1955, 2478 OF 2008 13, 88, 44, 68 OF 2009 10