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 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 1391 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.281/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- THE MOTHER SUPERIOR, S.D.CONVENT, CHUNANGANVELI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SR. KABIRINI S.DALIA, SMT. KOCHUTHRESSIA, AGED 74, RETIRED TEACHER, D/O. JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE STATE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (NO MEMO) SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1391 of 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. It appears to us that there are some elements of genuineness in the grievance voiced by her. Her property was acquired for the purpose of Idamalayar Irrigation Project. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 24/5/1997. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.20,938/- per Are including the property in category 1 lands with road frontage. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence would refix the land value at Rs.29,313/- per Are granting enhancement by 40% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The ground, which is prominently raised in this memorandum of appeal is that the same Reference Court has granted much more enhancement under Exts.A2 and A3 judgments, which also pertain to acquisition of lands included in the same category by the Land Acquisition Officer and acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. This discrimination, according to LAA.No.1391/2007 2 Sri.Jayasankar B. learned counsel for the appellant is not at all justified. Sri.Jayakumar submitted that though it is true that the land under acquisition in the present case is an extensive area, the land was enjoying road frontage on three sides, so that it was always possible for the owner to sell the property if he wanted, by dividing the same into small plots. Sri.Jayakumar also submitted that the court below went wrong in not accepting the appellant's claim for enhancement towards the value of improvements. 3. All the submissions of Sri.Jayakumar were opposed by the learned senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha T.Thankappan. She submitted that it is trite that wholesale price will always be lesser than the retail price and that owners of larger plots are not entitled to the rates awarded to the small plots. 4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are in agreement with the learned Sub Judge in his view that the appellant is not entitled for the value awarded under Exts.A2 and A3 despite the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the same value for all these properties. At the same time, we feel that the difference of 30% maintained by the LAA.No.1391/2007 3 learned Sub Judge under the impugned Judgment between the values awarded under Exts.A2 and A3 and the present impugned judgment is not justified. On a better assessment taking into account all the relevant aspects of the matter including the circumstance that the acquired property was enjoying road frontage on three sides, we refix the value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.31,500/- per Are. We are not inclined to accept the submission of Sri.Jayasankar regarding the proper compensation to be awarded for the improvements which existed on the property, since we notice that no specific ground in that regard has been raised in the memorandum of appeal. The appeal is allowed refixing the market value of land under Acquisition at Rs.31,500/-. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefit admissible under law on the total enhanced compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk