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. 222 of 2004(A) -------------------------------- LAR.17/2002 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------- K.V.SABU, S/O.K.I.VARGHESE, AGE 41, KANAPPILLIL HOUSE, PALLIPARAMBUKAVU ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA NOW RESIDING AT KATTADIYIL HOUSE, P.M.S.ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(CN), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS FOR R2 SMT.ASHACHERIYAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA 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.222 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. His property situated in Ernakulam village was acquired for the purpose of doubling of Railway Track between Ernakulam junction and Ernakulam marshelling yard. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,03,800/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimant placed reliance on Exts.A1 and A2. Exts.A1 and A2 were Land Acquisition Officer's award and court award respectively in respect of acquisition of land in Elamkulam village situated at a distance of 500 metres from the acquired property. In Exts.A1 and A2 the court had approved the value of Rs.1,96,500/- per Are. Under the impugned judgment, the L. A. A. No.222 of 2004 -2- learned Subordinate Judge has observed that the properties covered by Ext.A1 and the acquired property are comparable and the distance between the two is only 500 metres. 2. One of the arguments which was addressed before us by Sri.K.R.Mohanan, the learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned Subordinate Judge should have found that property in Ernakulam village will have more value than properties in Elamkulam village. We notice some merit in the above argument. At the same time, we are not inclined to re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition accepting the above argument. 3. Another argument which was addressed by Sri.Mohanan was that the court below could have made additions to value covered by Exts.A1 and A2 in view of the passage of about three years' time. This argument is certainly meritorious and we are inclined to accept the same L. A. A. No.222 of 2004 -3- to a considerable extent. According to us, the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in discarding Exts.A1 and A2 altogether and in preferring the judgment in LAR.16/02. We are of the view that relying on Exts.A1 and A2 and making additions for passage of time between the two notifications under Section 4(1), the market value of the land under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2,63,000/- per Are. It is accordingly fixed. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/- L. A. A. No.222 of 2004 -4-