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. 371 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.249/2001 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: -------------- 1. MOTHANGA DAMODARAN, S/O. KAVILE VALAPPIL THAYILE PURAYIL KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT MATTOOL AMSOM DESOM, MATTOOL NORTH, KANNUR. 2. MOTHANGA VINESHAN S/O. KAVILE VALAPPIL THAYILE PURAYIL KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT MATTOOL AMSOM DESOM, MATTOOL NORTH, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), OECF, KANNUR. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, OECF, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE-9. SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.371 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The claimants are the appellants. Their land in Kannapuram Village of Kannur District was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 20.3.1998 for the purpose of the Kerala Water Authority. The land lying on a hill top was dry land without any improvements. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,861/- per cent. Before the reference court the appellant/claimant placed most reliance on Ext.A3 award of the LA Officer in respect of another property acquired for the same purpose. Under Ext.A3 the awarding officer had awarded a little more than Rs.5,000/- per cent. In fact the appellant examined the party to Ext.A3 as a witness on their side. Though she stated in chief examination that her property as well as the property under acquisition are similar, in cross- examination she had to confess that her property was L.A.A.371/2009 2 situated nearer to the NH-17. The Advocate Commissioner certainly reported that the property covered by Ext.A3 is, when compared to the property under acquisition, inferior. The court below however, relied on the evidence given by AW3 and did not place any reliance on Ext.A3. Ultimately what the court below did was to apply rule of thumb and grant an enhancement of 40% over what was already awarded. In this appeal the appellants have raised various grounds and contended that the market value re-fixed by the court below is inadequate. Smt.P.K.Priya, learned counsel for the appellants addressed arguments before us based on all those grounds. Sri.Babu Varghese, learned Standing Counsel, however, would support the impugned award. 2. We have gone through the impugned award. We have also taken into account those items of evidence to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants. We are of the view that the court below was not justified in discarding Ext.A3 altogether from consideration. At the same time we are in agreement with L.A.A.371/2009 3 the learned Subordinate Judge that the market value of the land awarded under Ext.A2 would fetch more value than the property owned by AW2. Having re-appreciated the materials, we feel that the market value of the land under acquisition is to be re-fixed at Rs.3,500/- per cent. This means that for each cent the appellants will be entitled for further enhancement of Rs.894/- per cent, over and above what is awarded by the court below. Thus the value of land under acquisition is re-fixed at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per cent. The appellants/claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment, under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb