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 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1366 of 2009(B) -------------------------- LAR.27/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. K.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, TC 3/2733,KAMAL, PATTOM PALACE.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, TRIDA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1507 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.1366, 1507, 1535,1539, 1564 of 2009 & 64 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The Government is in appeal. Properties were in Kowdiar Village and the properties under acquisition was for widening of road leading from Pattom to Kowdiar. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 30.10.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,77,840/- per Are. Before the reference court the claimants relied mostly on Ext.A1 document, which was 2½ years subsequent to the date of Section 4(1) notification. Apart from that they relied on Ext.A2 judgment in LAR.No.183/2006 series. That judgment was in respect of acquisition of land on the M.G.Road at Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of road widening (LMS-Attakulangara). Under that judgment the reference court had re-fixed value of the land involved in those cases at Rs.27,16,998/- per Are. L.A.A.1366, 1507, 1535,1539, 1564 of 2009 & 64 of 2010 2 The learned Subordinate Judge took the view that the property under acquisition in these cases was more valuable than the value of properties covered by Ext.A2 judgment and would fix a market value of Rs.30 lakhs per Are (10% more than the rate granted under Ext.A2). 2. In these appeals, the Government has raised various grounds assailing the judgment of the reference court. We have heard the submissions of Smt.R.Bindu, learned Government Pleader who addressed us very strenuously and persuasively on the basis of all those grounds. According to her, the court below was clearly in error in thinking that the property covered by the present acquisition was more valuable than the properties covered by Ext.A2. A2 properties were enjoying the frontage of a much more important road, viz., M.G.Road at Thiruvananthapuram whereas most of the properties involved in this acquisition were enjoying the frontage of only a less important road leading from Pattom to Kowdiar. According to Smt. Bindu, the court below acted L.A.A.1366, 1507, 1535,1539, 1564 of 2009 & 64 of 2010 3 improperly in awarding higher value than the value paid to the parties under Ext.A2. She highlighted that while for the properties covered by Ext.A2 the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,52,833/- per Are, for the properties involved in these cases, the Land Acquisition Officer would award Rs.1,77,848/- per Are only. According to Smt.Bindu, the correct market value of the properties acquired in these cases will be less than 50% of the properties covered by A2. 3. All the submissions of Smt.Bindu were forcefully resisted by Sri.Lal George, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr.Lal George would place before us a sketch showing the relative position of the property under acquisition and important areas of Thiruvananthapuram such as Kesavadasapuram, Pattom Palace, Bishop House, City Traffic Police Station, Kendriya Vidhyalaya, Office of the Public Service Commission and the General Post Office. According to Mr.Lal George, the properties L.A.A.1366, 1507, 1535,1539, 1564 of 2009 & 64 of 2010 4 covered by the present acquisition are as important if not more than the properties covered by Ext.A2. According to him, a post-notification document, Ext.A1, could have been relied on since there is no evidence to hold that the higher value shown in Ext.A1 is the result of the present acquisition or that there was any steep increase in land value during the 2½ years period between the date of Section 4(1) notification and date of Ext.A1. Mr.Lal George also placed before us copy of the judgment of this court in LAA.1330/2005 wherein according to him for identical properties, this court fixed land value of Rs.9 lakhs per cent pursuant to a notification issued in 1997. He also relied on our own judgment in LAA.136/2008. 4. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We are unable to rely on the two judgments, copies of which were placed before us by Mr.Lal George, since those judgments do not form part of the record in these cases. 5. We find merit in the submissions of the learned L.A.A.1366, 1507, 1535,1539, 1564 of 2009 & 64 of 2010 5 Government Pleader that court below was not justified in taking the view that the properties covered by the present acquisitions were more valuable than the properties covered by Ext.A2. We feel that the properties covered by the present acquisition has only lesser value than the properties covered by Ext.A2. According to us, the court below was justified in not placing reliance on Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was a document executed 2½ years subsequent to the date of relevant Section 4(1) notification. We have by our judgment in LAA.2008/2008 interfered with the above judgment and re-fixed the market value accordingly. Mr.Lal George submitted that if opportunity is given the claimants may be able to substantiate the claims involved in these cases. Since we have modified land value in Ext.A2 and learned counsel for the claimants is desirous of an opportunity for producing fresh documents we feel that issue can be relegated back to the court below. Accordingly LAR.27/2008, 37/2008, 90/2008, 80/2008, 25/2008 & L.A.A.1366, 1507, 1535,1539, 1564 of 2009 & 64 of 2010 6 69/2008 are remitted back to the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, after setting aside the judgments and decrees impugned. We make it clear that the entire award of the reference court is set aside and reference court will be bound to re-fix the market value of the land as well as compensation payable to the respective claimants towards value of improvements. Court below is directed to afford opportunity to all parties to adduce whatever further evidence they want to and to take a fresh decision on the entirety of evidence. Needful in this regard will be done by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and at any rate within five months of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb