IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 946 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.35/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- P.MEERA SAHIB,S/O.PAREETHU BAPPU, BISMI,PONGUMMOODU,OPP.PHED PUMB HOUSE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA,TC 7/1171, PONGUMOODU MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R2 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, ALONG WITH LAA. 947/09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 946 & 947 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Both these appeals are preferred by the claimants and they pertain to acquisition of land in Pallippuram Village for the purpose of construction of a 400 KV Sub Station for the Power Grid Corporation of India. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 9-11- 2000. In LAA. No. 947 of 2009, the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12,227/- per Are. The reference court evaluating the evidence which came on record would re-fix the land value at Rs.14,672/- per Are, thus granting an increase of 20% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. In LAA. No. 946 of 2009 the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.11,115/- per Are. The reference court considering the evidence which came on record would re-fix the land value at Rs.13,338/- per Are, thus granting 20% increase in this case also. LAA. Nos. 946 & 947 of 2009 -2- 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.Ahzar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Millu Dandapani, standing counsel for the requisitioning authority and the learned Govt. Pleader Mr. Basant Balaji. Mr. Millu Dandapani submitted at the outset that the requisitioning authority proposes to file cross objection and has requested for adjournment of the matter. Mr.Ahzar would assail the impugned judgment on the basis of the various grounds raised in the appeal memorandum. Mr. Millu Dandapani was supported in his submissions by Mr.Basant Balaji, learned Govt. Pleader. We have scanned the impugned judgment. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence. 3. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in not placing reliance on the documents which were put in evidence by the claimants. Ext.A4 being a post notification document, could not have been relied on. Ext. A3, we also feel, was a document brought into LAA. Nos. 946 & 947 of 2009 -3- existence for the purpose of claiming higher land value in prospective land acquisition cases. But the mahazar reveals that the properties were enjoying the frontage of Market Road. But the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded on the basis that the properties do not enjoy any road frontage at all. Ultimately, what has been done by the learned Subordinate Judge is guess work based on the evidence which came on record. We feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was a little miserly in the matter of re- fixing the market value of the property under acquisition. On a better guess, based on the evidence which came on record, according to us, the market value of the acquired property for which the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12,227/- per Are could be re-fixed at Rs.15,895/- per Are. Similarly, the market value of the property for which the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.11,115/- per Are could be re-fixed at Rs.14,450/- . Thus LAA. Nos. 946 & 947 of 2009 -4- as against the enhancement of 20% awarded by the reference court we are awarding total enhancement of 30% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. The appeals stand allowed to that extent only. It is needless to mention that the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-