IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1245 of 2010 ----------------------------- LAR.12/1993 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------------- 1. INDRAN, KUNNACHANAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MANAKKADUCHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. B.SUBHASHINI -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1245 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants are in appeal. Their property included in category-4 (reclaimed wet lands) situated in Vadakkevila village within the area of Kollam corporation was acquired for the purpose of construction of Kollam byepass. This was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 31/08/1989. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.7845/- per Are corresponding to Rs.3176/- per cent. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment after discarding various items of evidence adduced by the claimants would re-fix the land value by granting an enhancement of Rs.4707/- per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Reference Court. We have heard submissions of Sri.T.K.Ajan, the learned counsel for the appellants and those of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior Government L. A. A. No.1245 of 2010 -2- Pleader. Smt.Latha would very fairly bring to our notice the judgment of this Court in another appeal L.A.A.203/09 and submit that in that case which pertains to acquisition of land in a superior category for the same purpose, this Court has approved enhancement by 263% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. Sri.Ajan would place strong reliance on Annexure-I judgment produced along with this appeal. According to him, since Annexure-I is on the basis of an earlier notification, there is justification for awarding the value under Annexure-I taking into account the passage of time. We are not impressed by the submission of Sri.Ajan. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Annexure-I pertains to another notification and more importantly to a superior category of property. It is our view that the properties which are included in inferior category cannot aspire for increase in value at rates granted to properties in superior categories. At the same time, we are of the view that there must be some co-relation between the values of properties in various categories within one local area. Keeping all these L. A. A. No.1245 of 2010 -3- aspects in mind we feel that as far as the subject property is concerned (category-4), the market value can be reasonably fixed at Rs.23,530/- per Are. It is accordingly, re-fixed. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 4. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. While drafting the decree, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court in its order in C.M.Application No.1992/10. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-