IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 1046 of 2003() -------------------------- LAR.41/1999 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/SUPPLIMENTAL 2ND RESPONDENT: -------------- TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.M.KURIAN(JR.) SRI.ALAN PAPALLI RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: --------------- 1 KEZHEDATH THANKAM AMMA EAST ARYANKALAM, ANNARA, TIRUR 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUSITIONS (GENERAL) TIRUR. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R1 SRI.RAJIT FOR R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1161 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos. 1046 & 1161 OF 2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The requisitioning authority, the Tirur Municipality, and the claimant are both in appeal being aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Tirur. 2. The acquisition at the behest of the Tirur Municipality was for the purpose of development of a school belonging the Municipality. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 23/10/1998. The lands were garden lands situated opposite to Thunchanparambu in Tirur. Relying on the basis document, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.17,600/- per cent. 3. Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied on Exts.A1 to A4. The learned Subordinate Judge discarded all the above four documents giving reasons. Finally the learned Subordinate Judge refixed the land value at Rs.25,000/- per cent on the reason that the properties were situated just opposite to Thunchanparambu, the birth place of Thunjath Ezhuthassan, father of Malayalam Language where a museum and cultural LAA.Nos.1046 & 1161/2003 2 centre stands established. 4. In the appeal (L.A.A. No. 1046/2003) preferred by the Municipality, they contend that the court below was not justified in granting this much of enhancement based solely on the proximity of the acquired properties to Thunchanparambu. It is urged that vehicles could not access these properties since it was at a height of 1.75 meters from the road level and it could be accessed only through steps. The above minus factor of the properties was completely ignored by the learned Subordinate Judge, it is so urged. 5. In the appeal (L.A.A. No.1161/2003) preferred by the claimant she urges that the market value redetermined by the Reference Court is grossly inadequate. It is contended that the court below should have relied on Exts.A1 to A4 or at least some of them and refixed the market value at above Rs.50,000/-. However, the appellant has limited her claim for land value to Rs.35,000/- per cent. 6. Sri.Alan Papali, learned counsel for the appellant/Municipality and Sri. M.Rajagopalan learned counsel for the claimant addressed us in detail. Both the learned counsel LAA.Nos.1046 & 1161/2003 3 drew our attention to the impugned award of the Reference Court and also to the evidence particularly Ext.A1 to A4 and Ext.C1 commissioner's report. The counsel addressed submissions based on the grounds raised in the memoranda of appeal respectively filed by them. 7. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a survey of the evidence on record particularly Exts.A1 to A4 and Ext.C1 commission report. We find merit in the submission of Mr.Papali that the court below was not justified in enhancing the land value by Rs.7,400/- per cent on the reason that the properties had proximity to Thunchanparambu. We find force in the submission of Mr.Rajagopalan that the court below should not have been discarded all the documents produced by the claimant. The reasons stated by the court below for discarding Exts.A1, A2 and A4 are fairly sound and we approve them and we are also not, therefore, relying on those three documents. 8. Ext.A3 is a document dated 27/9/1995 pertaining to 14.08 cents of land and reflecting land value of Rs.34,943/- per cent. The reason stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for LAA.Nos.1046 & 1161/2003 4 discarding Ext.A3 is that near to that property a shopping complex stands constructed. The submission of Mr.Rajagopalan was that since the present land acquisition proceedings were under way since 1980, no shopping complex should be constructed on the property under acquisition extending to two acres. Had it not been for acquisition proceedings the claimant/appellant herself could have facilitated construction of shopping complexes. The submission that these properties have much commercial potentiality has some appeal to us. Tirur is an urban area and the area, where the acquired property is situated, was at least semi urban in nature. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr.(2008 SAR (Civil) 894) we feel that there is every justification for adding to the value at the rate of 10% per year. When additions are made in that way, value of the properties covered by Ext.A3 will come to Rs.45,000/- per cent. But, we feel that Ext.A3 property was slightly superior to the properties under acquisition. We also notice that properties under acquisition were large in extent and applying the principles laid down by the LAA.Nos.1046 & 1161/2003 5 Supreme Court in L.A.O. & Sub Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal & another (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2552) appropriate deductions have to be made for the largeness of the extent. We also take into account the submission of Mr.Papali that the acquired properties at the time of acquisition was not accessible to vehicles. Even after giving due allowance for these minus points, the value of the properties at the time of acquisition could not have been less than 33,000/-. 9. We allow L.A.A. No.1161/2003 and refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.33,000/- per cent. We dismiss L.A.A. No.1046/2003. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The appellant/claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act on the total refixed compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk LAA.Nos.1046 & 1161/2003 6 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos. 1046 & 1161 OF 2003 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 13th June 2011