IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 1070 of 2010() -------------------------- LAR.17/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- HEMA KURIACHANN,AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.SAJU @ KURIACHAN,PULIKKIYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHOTTUPARA,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA)GENERAL, THRISSUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDINGS,M.V.ROAD,PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025. ADV. SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA,SC,ROADS & BRI FOR R THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1071 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... L.A.A.NOs.1070 & 1071 OF 2010 ................................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Claimants are the appellants. The property was in Killannur village and the acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Railway over bridge at Mulamkunnathukavu- Trichur- Shornur road. Section 4 (1) notification was published on 21.3.2005. The L.A. Officer relying on the basic document fixed the land value at Rs. 87,755/- per Are. Before the reference court, the claimants relied on Ext.A1 document. Ext.A1 was not the document in respect of the acquired property itself. Ext.A1 was executed three years prior to the promulgation of Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A1 was considered by the L.A. Officer in the award initially. L.A. Officer discarded Ext.A1 on two reasons. The first reason was that it pertains to a small extent. The second reason was that a fancy price was paid by the purchaser in Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was marked by AW1, the claimant, himself. No suggestion was made in cross examination of AW1 that Ext.A1 is an artificial document. The only suggestion made was that one of the parties to L.A.A.NOS.1070 & 1071 OF 2010 : 2 : Ext.A1 was one of the claimants. The learned Subordinate Judge has discarded Ext.A1 saying that Ext.A1 is executed by one of the parties to the proceedings and also that it is an artificially inflated price which is shown in Ext.A1 and ultimately the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value awarding enhancement of 50%. Accordingly the market value was refixed at Rs.1,31,662.50 per Are. In these appeals various grounds are raised challenging what is described as the inadequacy of the market value. 2. Sri. P. Viswanathan - learned counsel for the appellants addressed very persuasive submissions on the basis of Ext.A1. According to him, there was no justification for discarding Ext.A1. Ext.A1 should have been relied on and additions at the rate of 10% should have been granted on the value reflected in Ext.A1. In that way, the market value should have been refixed at Rs.1,85,325/- per Are. 3. All the submissions of Sri. Viswanathan were stiffly opposed by Sri. Shyson P. Manguzha - the learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority. Sri. Shyson submitted that it is a matter of common knowledge that L.A.A.NOS.1070 & 1071 OF 2010 : 3 : long prior to the promulgation of Section 4(1) notification, the news that the over bridge was going to be constructed was known to the public. According to him, it is in anticipation of L.A. proceedings that higher rate was shown in Ext.A1 by the parties who are parties to the LAR proceedings also. He also submitted that significantly the claimant who was a party to Ext.A1 has not preferred any appeal. Since the party to Ext.A1 is satisfied with the present rate of Rs. 1,31,662.50 per Are, the appellants who are not parties to Ext.A1 cannot have any legitimate grievance. These submissions were supported by the senior Government Pleader. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the bar. We have made a quick reappraisal of the evidence including Ext.A1 and oral evidence of AW1. We are surprised to notice that the learned Subordinate Judge has entered a finding that the value shown in Ext.A1 is an artificial rate. We find that the above finding does not have any foundation in the L.A.A.NOS.1070 & 1071 OF 2010 : 4 : evidence adduced in the case. As already stated, no suggestion was even made to PW1 that the value shown in Ext.A1 is an artificial rate. The suggestion was only to the effect that one of the parties is a claimant in the case. We do not think that Ext.A1 was an artificial document. May be it is true that considering the smallness of the extent and the special interest which the purchaser had over the property, he paid slightly more than the market value. Ext.A1, had some relevance and should not have been completely discarded. We re appreciate the evidence on record taking into account Ext.A1 also. According to us, market value of the land under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at Rs.1,60,000/- per Are. We allow these appeals and fix the market value at Rs.1,60,000/- per Are. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits. However, while the decree is drafted and a provision is made for interest under Section 28, the section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court in the order condoning the delay. Parties will suffer their respective costs in these appeals. There will be a further observation L.A.A.NOS.1070 & 1071 OF 2010 : 5 : that the benefit of this judgment will be given only to the appellants before us and not to those who have not preferred any appeals. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl