IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 785 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.81/2003 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- JOSE,S/O.MATHEW,MANKOOTTATHIL, KURUMULLOOR,ONAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 785 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal preferred by the Government pertains to acquisition of 1.85 Ares of land in Onamthuruth Village for the formation of M.V.I.P. Branch Canal pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 2/1/2002. The land acquisition officer included this property in category No.4 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.7540/- per Are. Before the reference court, the evidence consisted of Ext.A1-copy of the judgment in LAR No.132/2002 of the same court, Exts.R1 and R2(basis documents and topo sketch), Ext.C1 Commission report and Ext.C1(a) plan, apart from the oral evidence of PW1 and RW1 respectively. The respondent was a claimant in L.A.R.No.82/2003 also. The learned Subordinate Judge noticed that the properties in L.A.R. No.82/2003 had been included in category No.2. Ext.C1 commission report and Exts. C1A plan were relied on by the court to find that the property covered by this case and by L.A.R. No.82/2003 were being enjoyed by the L.A.A..No.785/2008 2 respondent as a single holding. On that reasoning, the court found that the property in this case should also be included in category No.2. 2. We are of the view that the reasoning of the court below for inclusion of the property in this case in category No.2 is quite sound. It is not clear from the judgment as to what was the rate awarded by the land acquisition officer for the properties in category No. 2. It is apparent that the value awarded by the land acquisition officer for category 2 property, which was having direct road frontage unlike category No.4 property, was more than the property in category 4. Percentage of enhancement granted in this case (i.e. 7540/- to 14797/-) comes to 96%. But, when we are considering the up gradation of category by the reference court, the actual percentage of increase given to the parties is not more than 65% to 70%. It is brought to our notice that for the very same purpose pursuant to a subsequent notification under Section 4(1) in 2004, other properties were acquired in the adjourning village and the reference court granted uniform enhancement of 65% over the rates which had been awarded by the land acquisition officer. L.A.A..No.785/2008 3 We further notice that in the impugned judgment, the court below noticed that the basis document could not have been relied on without additions since the same was executed some three years prior to the date of the relevant section 4(1) notification. Taking into account both the above aspects, we are of the view that there is no warrant for interfering with the impugned judgment. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk