IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1096 of 2009(D) --------------------------------- LAR.32/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS: ------------------------------- 1. PILATHOTTAM PARAMBIL LEELA W/O [LATE] ANDY, AGED 76 YEARS. (A COMPLAINT) 2. PILATHOTTAM PARAMBIL KRISHNADAS, S/O [LATE] ANDY, AGED 59 YEARS. (B COMPLAINT) 3. PILATHOTTAM PARAMBIL DEVADAS, S/O [LATE] ANDY, AGED 44 YEARS. (C COMPLAINT) 4. PILATHOTTAM PARAMBIL VALSALA D/O [LATE] ANDY, AGED 50 YEARS. (D COMPLAINT) 5. PILATHOTTAM PARAMBIL UMA DEVI, D/O [LATE] ANDY, AGED 48 YEARS. (E COMPLAINT) 6. PILATHOTTAM PARAMBIL USHADEVI, D/O [LATE] ANDY, AGED 46 YEARS. (F COMPLAINT) 7. PILATHOTTAM PARAMBIL UDAYAKUMARI, D/O [LATE] ANDY, AGED 42 YEARS. (G COMPLAINT) 8. PILATHOTTAM PARAMBIL NISHA D/O [LATE] ANDY, AGED 40 YEARS. (H COMPLAINT) ALL ARE RESIDING AT PILATHOTTAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEVAYUR VILLAGE, MALAPARAMBA (P.O), KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE LAA.1096/09 -2- RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NH-I, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE R/BY ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO.1310 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.1096 & 1310 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J L.A.A.1096/09 is preferred by the claimant and L.A.A.1310/09 is preferred by the Government. These appeals pertain to acquisition of garden land in Chevayur village for the purpose of construction of Kozhikode bye-pass. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 09/12/93. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.14,520/- per cent. The Reference Court would appraise the evidence which consisted of documentary evidence of Exts.A8 to A15, Exts.C4 to C8 L. A. A. Nos.1096 & 1310 of 2009 -2- Commission Report and the oral evidence of the claimant as AW2, and fix the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.60,000/- per cent. This was done by the learned Subordinate Judge mainly relying on the judgment of the Reference Court in LAR.479/97. Our attention is drawn by the counsel to our own judgment in LAA.774/06 which was directed against the judgment relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader Smt.R.Bindu that this Court having set aside the judgment in LAR.479/97, ought to set aside the impugned judgment also. 2. Sri.Jeswin P. Varghese, the learned counsel for the claimant would submit that under the impugned judgment in LAA.774/06, this Court L. A. A. Nos.1096 & 1310 of 2009 -3- has re-fixed the value of garden land for which the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded only Rs.3427/- per cent at Rs.50,000/-. According to him, even if only a proportionate increase is given, the land value will have to be re-fixed at Rs.2,17,391/- per cent. Sri.Jeswin P. Varghese also referred to the common judgment of this Court in LAA Nos.93 and 128 of 2002 and submitted that another Bench of this Court in that judgment has fixed the market value of identical lands at Rs.75,000/- per cent. 3. Smt.R.Bindu took strong exception to the argument that proportionate increase based on the judgment in LAA No.774 of 2006 should be given to the properties under acquisition. According to her, the ratio fixed by the L.A. Officer L. A. A. Nos.1096 & 1310 of 2009 -4- between the values of the garden lands and wet lands was a totally incorrect ratio. She submitted that this Court fixed the value of the land involved in LAA No.774/06 on making a re-appraisal of the entire evidence in that case. That case did not involve any garden land. As regards the argument based on the common judgment in LAA Nos.93 and 128 of 2002 Smt.Bindu submitted that R.P. No.1295/08 is pending before this Court seeking a review of that judgment. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We find that it is on appreciating the elaborate evidence which was available that the learned Sub Judge in a reasonably correct fashion, under the impugned L. A. A. Nos.1096 & 1310 of 2009 -5- judgment fixed the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.60,000/-. At the same time, we feel that when it came to the ultimate fixation of the market value the learned Sub Judge was slightly miserly. On a better assessment based on the same evidence, we feel that the correct market value of garden land involved in these cases at the relevant time can be fixed at Rs.65,000/- per cent. In modification of the impugned judgment and allowing LAA No.1096 of 2009 to the above extent we re-fix the value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.65,000/- per cent. Needless to mention that the claimants will be entitled to all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this re-fixation. L. A. A. Nos.1096 & 1310 of 2009 -6- 5. The result is that LAA No.1096 of 2009 is allowed to the extent indicated herein above and LAA. No.1310 of 2009 is dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns & Ksv/-