IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 602 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.116/2003 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ---------------------- MUHAMMED, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MAKKAR, KUNJATTU HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM, VIA.POTHANIKKADU. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.DY.TAHASILDAR (L.A), MUVATTUPUZHA (MVIP). BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008 ALONG WITH LAA NO.604/06, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.Nos.602 & 604 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 14th November, 2008 JUDGMENT These appeals pertain to acquisition in Varapetty Village for the Varapetty Distributary of the M.V.I.P. The relevant notification under Section 4(1) was dated 26.1.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2570/- per Are. Before the reference court, the appellants relied mainly on Ext.A1 judgment in LAR No.148/03 and Ext.A2 judgment in LAR No.115/03. The learned Subordinate Judge did not place any reliance on Ext.A1 and in my opinion also the learned Judge was justified in not placing reliance on Ext.A1 since it was clear that Ext.A1 properties were much superior to the properties involved in these cases and were acquired pursuant to another notification under Section 4(1). Ext.A2 judgment, it was noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge, was in respect of another case of acquisition pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification and for the same purpose. Thus, obviously Ext.A2 judgment was having probative value as far as these two cases were concerned. In fact the learned Subordinate Judge was dealing with three cases including these two cases. In the third case, namely, LAA No.147/03, the learned Judge noticed that the rate of land value LAA Nos.602 & 604/06 - 2 - awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimant was almost equal to the rate of land value which had been awarded by the officer to the party in Ext.A2 and on that basis the learned Judge became inclined to grant the enhancement which the court had given under Ext.A2, i.e., at the rate of Rs.4000/- per Are. In other words, the land value of the properties involved in LAR No.147/03 was refixed as Rs.15574/- per Are, thus awarding an enhancement of 34% to the party in LAR No.147/03. But coming to these two cases, the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that there was no comparison at all between the properties involved in these two cases and the properties involved in Ext.A2 case or for that matter the properties involved in LAR No.147/03. Taking that view of the matter, the learned Subordinate Judge answered the references in these two cases approving the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants has addressed me very persuasively. My attention was drawn by the counsel for the appellants to my own judgment in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004(3) KLT 261). Learned counsel submitted that the acquisition in LAR No.147/03 and in these two cases were for the LAA Nos.602 & 604/06 - 3 - same purpose and pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification. Therefore at least for the purpose of considering a claim under Section 28A, the judgment in LAR No.147/03 and Ext.A2 will be of relevance. Counsel submitted that there must be some correlation between the values on different categories of properties situated within the same local area. Even according to the Land Acquisition Officer, the ratio between the value of the properties involved in these cases and the properties involved in LAR No.147/03 was Rs.2570/- : Rs.11574/- per are. The reference court having granted 34% enhancement to the properties in LAR No.147/03 would have granted the same rate of enhancement to these properties also. 3. The learned Government Pleader would resist the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. However, the learned Government Pleader had no answer to the argument of the counsel for the appellants based on the judgment of this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (supra) that in a proceeding under Section 28A, Ext.A2 as well as the judgment in LAR No.147/03 can have relevance. 4. Having considered the submissions addressed before me and the legislative objective underlying Section 28A, I feel that there is LAA Nos.602 & 604/06 - 4 - justification for granting reasonable enhancement to the appellants also relying on the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge himself in LAR No.147/03. I feel that interest of justice will be adequately served if an enhancement at the rate of Rs.750/- per are is granted to the acquired properties in these cases. Accordingly, I allow both the appeals to the extent of enhancing the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by Rs.750/- per are for the acquired properties. Parties are directed to suffer their costs through out. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE