IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 535 of 2006(C) ------------------------------- LAR.84/2001 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS. ------------------------------- SMT.ANJANA VINOD, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.V.BABU, SHRISTI, MARUTHORVATTOM, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. -------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR (LA), WATER WAY NO.111, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INLAND WATER WAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE AT NOIDA AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.535 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Thannermukkom village was acquired at the instance of Inland Waterways Authority of India pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 21/07/98. The property was dry or garden land. The Land Acquisition Officer relying on the basis document executed in the year 1996 revealing a land value of Rs.7,000/- per cent would award Rs.7,000/- per cent. Before the Reference Court the claimant relied on Exts.A1, A2 and A3. Ext.A3 was a post notification document which was L. A. A. No.535 of 2006 -2- rightly rejected by the court. Exts.A1 and A2 were documents executed in favour of Taj Group of Hotels in the year 1996 reflecting a value of Rs.22,000/- per cent. The court below did not become inclined to place reliance on Exts.A1 and A2. One of the reasons mentioned was that in Exts.A1 and A2, the purchaser is a very big hotel who paid a fancy price in view of their enthusiasm to start a hotel by the side of the Vembanad lake. Another reason stated is that when the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent was fixed by the court previously in the first instance only the Government and the Requisitioning Authority preferred appeals. On these reasons the court below would re-fix the value at Rs.12,000/- per cent only. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been L. A. A. No.535 of 2006 -3- raised contending that the market value re-fixed by the court is inadequate. It is claimed that the market value be fixed at least at Rs.20,000/- per cent which is less than the rate reflected in Exts.A1 and A2. 3. Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed very persuasive arguments before us drawing our attention to the documents Exts.A1 and A2. Sri.V.Santharam, the learned Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority per contra would rely on the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge himself for justifying the impugned award. He highlighted that a party who was satisfied with the rate of Rs.12,000/- earlier awarded cannot now argue that Rs.12,000/- is not the correct compensation to be paid. L. A. A. No.535 of 2006 -4- 4. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. It is true that the claimant did not prefer any appeal against the previous judgment of the Reference Court fixing market value at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent. But at the same time, when this Court set aside the previous judgment and remanded the matter to the Reference Court as an open remand giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence and when availing that opportunity the party is claiming higher value than what was awarded originally we are not inclined to reject the appeal on the technical contention raised by the Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority. According to us, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is only an offer which need not be accepted by the party. For this particular case, the party did L. A. A. No.535 of 2006 -5- not accept the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and that was why the reference was facilitated. When the issue comes up before the Reference Court, it is the duty of the Reference Court to fix the market value on the basis of the totality of the evidence which comes on record. 5. We have re-appraised the evidence. We find merit in the submission of the Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority that there cannot be any safe comparison between the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 and the properties under acquisition. We are convinced that Exts.A1 and A2 properties is much more superior to the property under acquisition. At the same time, we are of the view that the rate of Rs.12,000/- awarded by the Reference Court is inadequate. According to us on a better L. A. A. No.535 of 2006 -6- assessment based on the entire evidence on record, the market value of the land under acquisition can be re-fixed at Rs.15,000/- per cent. It is accordingly, re-fixed. 6. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. Parties will suffer their respective costs. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-