IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 LA.App..No. 503 of 2011 --------------------------- LAR.33/2009 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- K.P.HARIDAS, S/O.PADMADAS, KOMBILLAT, SRM ROAD, PACHALAM, COCHIN-12. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.S.DILEEP SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPL.TAHASILDAR (LA), ICTT, VALLARPADAM, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, W.ISLAND, ERNAKULAM. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SMT.THUSHARA JAMES SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.503 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. The property was in Mulavukad village and was acquired for the purpose of 4 line connectivity road from Kalamassery to Vallarpadam for the ICTT at Vallarpadam. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category-2 and awarded land value of ` 67,891/- per Are. There was a small building on the property and as there is no claim in the present appeal in respect of building value we do not have to be concerned about the value of the building. The appellant produced Exts.A1 to A3. Before the Reference Court as well as before this Court the appellant placed reliance on Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was a pre- notification document under which wet land in the same village similar to the acquired property was sold for a price of ` 2,50,000/- pr cent corresponding to ` 6,17,500/- per Are. L. A. A. No.503 of 2011 -2- Under the impugned judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge did not place any reliance on Ext.A1 for the reason that the appellant has not adduced evidence to prove the comparability between the property covered by Ext.A1 and the property under acquisition. Accordingly, what the learned Subordinate Judge did ultimately was to re-fix the value of the land doing guess work based on oral evidence at ` 95,047/- per Are. In this appeal various grounds are raised and the ground prominently raised is the court below should have relied on Ext.A1 document and awarded the rate reflected in Ext.A1. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.S.Dileep, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, the learned senior Government Pleader and Sri.E.K. Nandakumar appearing for the Requisitioning Authority, Cochin Port Trust. All the submissions of the learned Government Pleader were supported by Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority. 3. Sri.Dileep would at the very outset draw our L. A. A. No.503 of 2011 -3- attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.1344/10. Sr.Dileep submitted that the above judgment pertains to acquisition of identical land situated adjacent to the property under acquisition. Sri.Dileep submitted that under that judgment the value of the land has been re-fixed at ` 5,86,895/- per Are. Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan the learned senior Government Pleader per contra would oppose the submissions of Sri.Dileep. According to Sri.Mohanan, the judgment of the court below cannot be faulted as there was no evidence to prove the comparability between the property covered by Ext.A1 and the property under acquisition. He also pointed out that the judgment of this court in L.A.A.1344/10 was never brought to the notice of the learned Subordinate Judge. According to Sri.Mohanan, the best which the appellant can aspire for, is an order of remand to the court below directing adduction of fresh evidence and passage of a revised judgment. 4. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have incorporated the judgment in L. A. A. No.503 of 2011 -4- L.A.A.1344/10 as well as judgment in L.A.A.114/11 relying on which only the judgment in L.A.A.1344/10 was rendered. A perusal of the judgment in L.A.A.114/11 will show that the property involved in that case was acquired pursuant to the same notification and the Land Acquisition Officer treated that property in the same category as the category in which the property under acquisition in the present appeal was placed. It is also seen that Ext.A1 in the present case itself was relied on in that judgment. Thus, the judgment in L.A.A.114/11 together with L.A.A.1344/10 will show that for identical property acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification, this court has approved re-fixation of land value at ` 5,86,895/- per Are. It is not disputed by Sri.Mohanan that the judgments in L.A.A.114/11 and L.A.A.1344/10 have attained finality. According to us no useful purpose is going to be served from the Government's point of view by passing an order of remand. 5. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal will stand allowed. The market value of the land under L. A. A. No.503 of 2011 -5- acquisition is re-fixed at ` 5,86,895/- per Are. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, while decree is drafted and provision is made for interest under Section 28, the conditions incorporated in our order in C.M. Application No.1141/11 will be noticed. It will be ensured that all the conditions in that order have been complied with. Decree copy will be issued only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted. 6. The appeal will stand allowed as above, however, without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- L. A. A. No.503 of 2011 -6-