IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 411 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.244/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., (NOW M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD), MARADU P.O, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DY. GENERAL MANAGER(E&C). BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & 1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O NARAYANAN, KOONAMKUNNATH, KUZHIKKADU. 2. RAVEENDRAN, S/O NARAYANAN, KOONAMKUNNATH, KUZHIKKADU. 3. PRADEEP, S/O NARAYANAN, KOONAMKUNNATH, KUZHIKKADU. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. SRI.T.P.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R1 TO 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA FOR R4 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.411 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 25thday of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal filed by the requisitioning authority and they are aggrieved by the redetermination of the market value by the Reference Court. The acquisition was for the purpose of the appellant and the relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 9/7/2002. The properties were in Puthencruz Village. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.29,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied on Exts.A1 to A3 documents and Ext.C1 Commission report in support of their claim for enhanced compensation towards the value of structures and also to bring home that the property was situated in an important locality. The learned Sub Judge did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1 to A3. However, relying on Ext.C1, which revealed that the property was situated in an important locality, the learned Sub Judge granted enhancement of 45% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer towards the land value and refixed LAA.No.411/2007 2 the same at Rs.42,050/-. Towards the value of improvements, enhancement of 30% over what was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was granted. In this appeal the appellant impugns the refixation of the market value as well as the enhancement granted towards the value of improvement . 2. Smt.Thusara James, learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned judgment on the various grounds raised in the appeal. Sri.T.P.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would defend the judgment on the various reasons stated in the judgment. He submitted that even though it is true that Exts.A1 to A3 were rejected, the fact remains that the correct market value of the property at the relevant time is even more than what is fixed under the impugned judgment. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and we have made good survey of the evidence. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in not placing reliance on Exts.A1 to A3, which means that to fix the market value, the learned Sub Judge did not have any sale document or other documents reflecting value of comparable properties in the LAA.No.411/2007 3 locality at the relevant time. In other words, it is based solely on the importance of the locality, as revealed from Ext.C1 report, that the learned Subordinate Judge has granted enhancement by 45%. This means that exercise of market value determination has been done by the learned Sub Judge by referring to guess work. We feel that it is not a completely correct guess that has been made by the learned Sub Judge regarding the correct market value of the property. On a better guess, based on the oral evidence and Ext.C1 available on record, we are of the view that the correct market value of the property under Acquisition could be refixed at Rs.40,600/- which incidentally comes to 40% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. Accordingly, we refix the land value of the acquired property at Rs.40,600/- per Are. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. We confirm the award of the learned Subordinate Judge towards the value of structures which existed. It is needless to mention that the claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits under Section 23 (1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation which LAA.No.411/2007 4 becomes admissible to them by virtue of our refixation of the compensation. We notice that the appeal has been over valued by more than 50%. For that reason we order that one half of the court fee paid on the appeal memorandum will be refunded to the appellant. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk