IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 2247 of 2008() -------------------------------------- LAR.NO. 21/2002 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------- THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.S. AMBIKA DEVI, SC FOR KWA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS --------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED, S/O. LATE PULIANVEETIL, PUTHIYOTH VEERAVUNNI, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE. 2. MOHAMMED MOYIN, S/O. LATE PULIYANVEETIL, PUTHIYOTH VEERAVUNNI, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE. 3. ABDU, S/O. LATE PULIYANVEETIL, PUTHIYOTH VEERAVUNNI, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE. 4. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. LATE PULIYANVEETIL, PUTHIYOTH VEERAVUNNI, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE. 5. BAVA, S/O. LATE PULIYANVEETIL, PUTHIYOTH VEERAVUNNI, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE. 6. KHADEEJA, S/O. LATE PULIYANVEETIL PUTHIYOTH VEERAVUNNI, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE. 7. UMMAYYA UMMA (DIED), D/O. LATE PULIYANVEETIL PUTHIYOTH VEERAVUNNI, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE. L.A.A.NO.2247/2008 8. ABDURAHIMAN, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, PULIYANVEETTIL PUTHIYOTH. 9. ALIKUTTY, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, PULIYANVEETTIL PUTHIYOTH. 10. AMINA, D/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, PULIYANVEETTIL PUTHIYOTH. 11. SAINABA, D/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, PULIYANVEETTIL PUTHIYOTH. 12. ABOOBACKER, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, PULIYANVEETTIL PUTHIYOTH. 13. ABDULLA, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, PULIYANVEETTIL PUTHIYOTH. 14. GAFOOR, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, PULIYANVEETTIL PUTHIYOTH. 15. BASHEER, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, PULIYANVEETTIL PUTHIYOTH. 16. JALEEL, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, PULIYANVEETTIL PUTHIYOTH. 17. PATHUMMAKKUTTY HAJJUMMA, W/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, PULIYANVEETTIL PUTHIYOTH. 18. PAREEKUTTY, S/O. LATE MOYUTTY, CHERUPALAKKATTU MUNNAR VEETIL, VAZHAYOOR. 19. KUNHOYI, S/O. LATE MOYUTTY, CHERUPALAKKATTU MUNNAR VEETIL, VAZHAYOOR. 20. FATHEEMA, D/O. LATE MOYUTTY, CHERUPALAKKATTU MUNNAR VEETIL, VAZHAYOOR. 21. MARIYAKUTTY, D/O. LATE MOYUTTY, CHERUPALAKKATTU MUNNAR VEETIL, VAZHAYOOR. 22. SAINABA, D/O. LATE MOYUTTY, CHERUPALAKKATTU MUNNAR VEETIL, VAZHAYOOR. BICHUMMA (EXPIRED)S/O.LATE MOYUTTY, CHERUPALAKKATTU MUNNAR VEETIL, VAZHAYOOR- sts L.A.A.NO.2247/2008 LEGAL HEIRS- 23. ABDUL RASAK, D/O. BICHUMMA. 24. ABDUL BASHEER, S/O. BICHUMMA. 25. LAILA, D/O. BICHUMMA 26. AYISHA BEEVI, D/O. BICHUMMA 27. KALLARA KALATHUMMAL MARAKKAR, CHERUPALAKKATTU MUNNAR VEETIL, VAZHAYOOR. (DIED) 28. FATHIMA, W/O. MARAKKAR (LATE), VAZHOOR AMSOM, (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A 2146/2003 DATED 10/10/2003) 29. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R3 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR R29 BY SENIOR GOVT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.2247 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 Judgment Balakrishnan, J. The requisitioning authority, the Kerala Water Authority, is the appellant. An extent of 0.0170 hectares and 0.2280 hectares of land situated in Vazhayoor village belong to the claimants were acquired for construction of O.H.Tank at Mundakassery. Section 4(1) notification was published on 30.8.1999. The property was taken possession in advance on 16.3.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation fixing the land value at Rs.2346/- per cent. Contending that the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate, they sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the court below, it was contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has ignored the potentiality of the acquired land while determining the compensation. It was contended that the basis document relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer was in respect of a land far inferior to the acquired land. It was also contended that that the assignment deed as per which the Panchayat had LAA 2247/08 2 purchased identical land was not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. After analysing the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge refixed the land value at Rs.5000/- per cent. The requisitioning authority contends that the court below was not justified in enhancing the compensation by refixing the land value at Rs.5000/- per cent which was almost double the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. We have heard Smt.S.Ambikadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant in extenso. She has taken us through the judgment of the court below and also the documents relied upon by the parties. It was found that the basis land relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer to determine the land value was far inferior in quality. Ext.A1 which is the assignment deed of 1995 was pressed into service by the claimants which reflected a land value of Rs.7700/- per cent. It was contended by the appellant that since the land therein was purchased by the Panchayat for constructing building, they must have paid fancy LAA 2247/08 3 price for the same. That contention was not accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge for valid reasons. We cannot believe that the Panchayat would offer fancy price for purchasing property since the usual practice is to get the valuation certificate in respect of the property to be purchased. Besides, proper discussion would held by the Panchayat regarding the consideration to be paid by the Panchayat for purchasing the property. It was also pointed out that the property was purchased in the year 1995 whereas the notification published in this case was only in 1999. Therefore, the land value should have been much more than what was reflected in Ext.A1. The court below has considered the fact that the land covered in Ext.A1 is slightly superior in quality. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the land value at Rs.5000/- per cent. Since the basis land is far inferior in quality, the learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in fixing the land value at Rs.5000/- per cent. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The compensation determined by the LAA 2247/08 4 court below refixing the land value at Rs.5000- per cent is found to be just and reasonable. The appeal is therefore dismissed. However, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd LAA 2247/08 5 LAA 2247/08 6