IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1528 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.97/2007 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- MAYAN, S/O.PARANGODAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, MANOLIPARAMBU, KUNNUMPURAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH P.O. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), NH.NO.I, KAKKANAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH (B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, ALONG WITH LAA.NO.1559/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos. 1528 & 1559 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 25 th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in Edappally North Village were acquired for the purpose of widening of NH-17. The relevant Section 4 (1) notification was published on 14/3/2002. The Land Acquisition Officer included the properties in category 3 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,14,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, AWs 1 to 3, Exts.C1 to C2 (a) and Exts.R1 to R4. Apart from that, the appellants relied on the judgment in LAR No.55/2007, a case relating to the property in category 5, wherein after upgrading the property, the Reference Court had refixed the value at Rs.1,68,000/- per Are. This was done by filing an application under Order 13 Rule 10 for relying on the records in LAR 55/2007. The advocate commissioner in Ext.C1 report had made a comparison of the properties under acquisition and the properties covered by L.A.R. No. 55/2007. The advocate commissioner, though not in so LAA.Nos.1528 & 1559/2009 2 many words, had indicated that the properties under acquisition were superior to the property covered by L.A.R. No.55/2007. The court below, however, did not become inclined to place any reliance on the judgment in L.A.R. No. 55/2007, for the technical reason that certified copy of the above judgment had not been made available before the Commissioner. 2. In these appeals various grounds are raised and we have heard the submissions of Sri. E.D.George, learned counsel for the appellants, who addressed arguments on all those grounds. The learned counsel would highlight the judgment in L.A.R. No.55/2007 and the commission report. According to him, the court below ought to have granted at least Rs.1,68,000/- per Are. 3. All the submissions of Sri.George were very strongly opposed by the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji. He submitted that admittedly, the properties under acquisition and the property, which is subject matter of LAR No.55/2007,(even after the up gradation) were included in different categories and hence not comparable. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the judgment in LAA.Nos.1528 & 1559/2009 3 LAR No.55/2007 cannot have any application. He also submitted that judgment in LAR No. 55/2007 has not attained finality. 4. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants for following the judgment in LAR No.55/2007. Admittedly and evidently, the properties in LAR No.55/2007 and the properties under acquisition were included in two different categories. Therefore, the question of the rate granted to the property in LAR No. 55/2007 being granted for the properties under acquisition in the present cases will not arise. However, having gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that the learned Sub Judge was a little miserly when he came to fixing the market value of the land under acquisition, which were situated in Edapally North village and were enjoying frontage of NH-17. We notice various judgments of this court pertaining to the acquisition in the same village and for the same purpose and find that almost uniformly, this court has found that the land value is at least 45% above the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. We are of the view that the same principles LAA.Nos.1528 & 1559/2009 4 can be adopted in these two cases and the market value of the land under acquisition can be refixed at Rs.1,65,300/- per Are. We do so. The appeal is allowed as above fixing the market value of land under acquisition at Rs.1,65,300/- per Are. It is needless to mention that the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A) 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act for the enhanced compensation to which, the appellants become eligible by virtue of this judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk