IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 816 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- LAR.NO. 55/2007 of IIND ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT & R1 IN LAR. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.JOSEPHINA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & R2 IN LAR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYA LEKSHMI, D/O.SUKUMARY AMMA, LEKSHMI VILASOM BUNGLOW, RANDAMADA MURI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. THE CHIEF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEERING DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF SPCACE, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. R1 BY SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH ,SENIOR ADVOCATE R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No. 816 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The government is in appeal. The property was in Peroorkada Village and was acquired for setting up of the expansion programme of composite group and IISU of ISRO. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 22.04.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in H category and awarded a land value @ Rs.15,931/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned judgment, refixed the land value @ Rs.5,00,000/- per Are. 2. The learned Government Pleader Smt. T.T.Josephena submitted that there was no claim for the claimant/respondent either before the Land Acquisition Officer or the court that her property should have been included in category A or for that matter, any superior category than H. In the absence of such a claim, the court below was not justified in refixing the land value, as though the property was in category A. According to L.A.A.No. 816 of 2010 2 the learned Government Pleader the court below also has not entered any specific finding to the effect that the property ought to have been included in category A. The courts below have arbitrarily fixed the market value @ Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. Sri. G.S.Reghunath, the learned learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the claimant had claimed before the court that the property was eligible to be included in category A. The courts below to accepted that claim and awarded the market value @ Rs.5,00,000/- per Are which is fixed for properties in category A. 4. We have gone through the lower court records. The award will show that the properties in category A are dry lands situated by the side of an untarred road, very near to Vattiyurkavu Junction and lies on the southern side of I.S.R.O unit. The award will also show that the properties in category H are wet lands without any road or pathway facility but had only Vayal varambas for access. 5. The mahazar prepared by the Land Acquisition Authority at the time of taking over possession does not give any clear idea L.A.A.No. 816 of 2010 3 as to what was the nature of the land at the time of acquisition. As per the revenue records, the property is Nilam or wet land. Further, it is stated in the mahazar that on the property under acquisition, no improvements were seen. On going through the judgment of the reference court, it is seen that the issue as to what was the correct category in which the properties were to be included has not received the attention of the learned Sub Judge. We do not think that the evidence adduced by the parties before the courts below was sufficient to enable the learned Sub Judge to answer the above issue. We will be able to sustain the present rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per Are only if we are able to hold that the properties will be eligible to be included in category A. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, no such claim was specifically raised. The impugned award is unsatisfactory. We set aside the judgment in L.A.R.No.55/2007 of the learned Sub Judge. The learned Sub Judge is directed to pass a revised award addressed specifically on the question as to what is the correct category in which the land under acquisition is to be included. The revised award will be passed enhancing that question. While taking a L.A.A.No. 816 of 2010 4 decision, it is open to the learned Sub Judge to go through the award passed by this court in other cases pertaining acquisition of identical land pursuant to the same notification. The parties will appear before the reference court on 29.07.2011. Send back the records forthwith to the lower court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln