IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No.1342 of 2003 ( ) --------------------------------- LAR. NO.216/95 OF ADDL. SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR ................ APPELLANT(S): ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, AMBALAMANGAL REPRESENTED BY COMPANY SECRETARY. BY ADV. SMT.THUSHARA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & 1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE S/O. ITHAPPIRI, KIZHIKKATTU ADOORKARA, AMBALAMUGAL. 2. JOHN S/O. ITHAPPIRI, KIZHIKKATHU ADOORKARA, AMBALAMUGAL. 3. SUKUMARAN S/O. KANDACHAN, CHARIVUPARAMBIL, KADUNGAMANGALAM, THIRUVAMKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA), COCHIN REFINERIES LIMITED VYTTILA, KOCHI-19. ADV. SRI.V.K.ISSAC FOR R1 & R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1342 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Kochi Refineries requisitioning authority is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Reference Court. The property acquired is 55.25 Ares of land in Sy. No.208/4 of Puthencruz village and the purpose of the acquisition was the expansion of Kochi Refineries Ltd. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 01/01/94. 26.90 Ares from out of the acquired property was categorised by the Land Acquisition Officer as dry land and the remaining portion of 28.35 Ares was treated by the Land Acquisition Officer as quarry and considered as waste land for the reason that the rock L. A. A. No.1342 of 2003 -2- stock in the quarry had been completely exhausted. For the dry land, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.17,500/- per Are and for the quarry portion, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,750 (10% of the value of the dry land). In the reference under Section 18 at the instance of the claimant, the evidence consisted mainly of Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.175/95 and commissioner's report and sketches Exts.C1 to C7 apart from the oral evidence of AWs.1 to 5 on the side of the claimants. Counter evidence on the side of the respondents consisted of Exts.R1 to R6. Ext.R6 was copy of the document and Exts.R1 to R5 were copies of papers in the award file maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer. The solitary witness examined on the side of L. A. A. No.1342 of 2003 -3- the Government was an officer of the Land Acquisition Authority. Importantly, no counter evidence whatsoever was adduced on the side of the requisitioning authority who were also parties to the reference case. The learned Sub Judge relying on Ext.A1 re-fixed the value of dry land at Rs.27,931/- per Are to which reliance was placed on Ext.A1 judgment. It is brought to my notice that Ext.A1 judgment has attained finality by the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.1002/2000. Ext.A1 was certainly relevant since the same was in respect of the acquisition of some properties and pursuant to some notifications and the Land Acquisition Officer has granted the same value to the parties in Ext.A1. In view of the finality attained by L. A. A. No.1342 of 2003 -4- Ext.A1, there is no warrant for interference with the re-fixation of the land value by the learned Sub Judge. Coming to the quarry portion of the property, the learned Sub Judge relied on the award of the Land Acquisition Officer to find that the quarry portion was being acquired so that the same could be utilised by the requisitioning authority for the purpose of expanding its existing water reservoir. It was found that the quarry portion had a total cubic capacity of 82500 cubic metres. The evidence in the case revealed that to construct a reservoir of that capacity the expenditure to be incurred will exceed Rs.1 crore. The court below for these reasons was not prepared to accept the stand of the Government and the requisitioning authority that the value of the quarry L. A. A. No.1342 of 2003 -5- portion is only 1/10 of value of the dry land. In stead taking into account the purpose of the acquisition and the ground realities, the learned Sub Judge could re- fix the market value of the quarry portion involved in this particular LAR at 1/4th of the value of the corresponding dry land and accordingly, the value of the quarry portion was re-fixed at Rs.6,983/- per Are. Though the Government and the requisitioning authority are justified in saying that the quarry portion acquired in this case has become valueless, as a quarry it continued to be very valuable at least for the requisitioning authority especially when the requisitioning authority wanted to use it as a prospective water reservoir. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the decision of L. A. A. No.1342 of 2003 -6- the learned Sub Judge in re-fixing the value of the quarry portion in the manner it has done was quite reasonable. We do not find any reason for interference with the above part of the judgment of the learned Sub Judge. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-