IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 807 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.144/2001 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- 1. KADUNGAN UMMER, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED HAJI, HIGHWAY ROAD, TALIPARAMBA, P.O.TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. MALIKKANTAKATH IBRAHIM, S/O.LATE MUHAMMAD KUNHI, NEAR MATHRUBHUMI OFFICE, TRICHAMBARAM, P.O.TRICHAMBARAM, P.O.TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. MEETHALEPATH MOIDEEN, S/O.LATE ABDULLA, RESIDING AT TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), OECF, KANNUR. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, OECF PROJECTS, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. P.N.SUMANGALA FOR R1 SMT.S.AMBIKADEVI FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 807 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their garden land in Pattuvam Village was acquired at the behest of the Kerala water Authority for drawing pipe line for Pattuvam Water Supply Scheme. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4100/- per cent based on a basis document. Before the Reference Court the appellants relied mostly on Ext. A1 document which was a document executed three months after the relevant notification date. The purchaser under A1 was the Thaliparamba Municipality who had purchased the property in Pattuvam Village obviously for the purpose of the Municipality. The learned Subordinate Judge has discarded A1 from consideration on the reason that though a suggestion was made during cross- examination to AW1 that the value shown in A1 is an LAA. No. 807/06 -2- artificially inflated value, the claimant did not take any step for examining the parties to A1. Therefore on the basis that no legal evidence is adduced by the claimant to support their claim for enhancement what the learned Sub Judge did was to answer the reference in the negative, i.e., confirmed the award of the LAO. 2. In this appeal, various grounds have been raised and it is seriously urged that the court below was not justified in discarding Ext.A1 which was executed in favour of a local self Government institution. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt.Ambikadevi, standing counsel for the Water Authority. While the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the learned Sub Judge and argued that A1 should have been relied on Smt. Ambikadevi submitted that despite specific question asked the claimant did not examine either of the parties to A1 and hence the LAA. No. 807/06 -3- Court below was justified in rejecting A1. 3. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions we are of the view that the court below was not justified in discarding A1 completely. After all, A1 is executed in favour of the Thaliparamba Municipality obviously for want of the purpose of the Municipality. It is difficult to assume that the Municipality would be a party in creating a collusive document for enabling the appellants to seek higher land value in the land acquisition proceedings. At the same time, we notice that A1 is a post notification document. This Court should be very slow in relying on A1. The commissioner reported that there was comparison between A1 and the acquired property. Notwithstanding the report of the commissioner we feel that the same value reflected in A1 cannot be granted to the appellants' property. On re- appreciating the evidence including A1 we allow the appeal to the extent of re-fixing the market value of the land LAA. No. 807/06 -4- under acquisition at Rs.4750/- per cent. This means that over and above what was awarded by the Reference Court we hold that the appellants will be entitled for enhancement at the rate of Rs.650/- per cent. Appeal is allowed as above. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act also. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-