IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 1316 of 2007(D) --------------------------- LAR.320/2003 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), NH, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD NH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT IN THE LAR --------------------------------------------- MOST.REV. CYRIL MAR BASELIOUS, ARCH BISHOP OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY K. YOHANNAN, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM KOTTAVILAYIL HOUSE, THUVAYOOR SOUTH, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009 ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1318/07, 40 , 764 OF 2008 & 120/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.Nos.1316, 1318 OF 2007, 40, 764 OF 2008, & 120 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. All these appeals are preferred by the Government against the award of the land acquisition reference court in acquisition of lands for the widening of road from Kesavadasapuram to PMG junction in Thiruvananthapuram city corporation. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 28-04-1999. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rates of Rs. 318416/- per Are and Rs. 334334/- per Are. Before the reference court the parties relied mainly on Ext.A1 sale document No.3211 dated 5-11-1997 which revealed a land value of Rs. 2,15,000/- per cent. On the side of the claimants in L.A.R.No.320/03 corresponding to L.A.A.No.1316/2007, the power of attorney holder of the Arch Bishop was examined as RW1. In the other cases, the respective parties gave evidence on their side. In none of the cases, absolutely no counter evidence was adduced on behalf of the State. The learned Subordinate Judge would rely on L.A.A.Nos.1316, 1317 OF 2007, 40, 764 OF 2008, & 120 OF 2009 2 the testimony of the claimants as well as the description of the property in the basis document which was not even produced by the State and find that the basis document was not a good basis for determining the value of the acquired lands. Coming to the property covered by Ext.A1, the learned Subordinate Judge noticed that “ the said land situates on the opposite side of Kedaram shopping complex at Kesavadasapuram junction and adjacent to the eastern side of the National Highway”. On evaluating the evidence and the records including the mahazer prepared by the land acquisition officer at the time of taking over of possession, the learned Judge found that the land under acquisition is similar to the land covered by Ext.A1 and “ there is nothing to show that the purchaser purchased the land at an attractive price being a shop site.” It was also noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge that the acquired lands were also commercially important lands being situated adjacent to the National Highway. It was accordingly found that Ext.A1 was in respect of a comparable property. The learned Judge would give an addition of 50% on the land value reflected in Ext.A1 and accordingly would refix the land value of the lands at Rs. 6,10,493/- per Are. In L.A.A.Nos.1316, 1317 OF 2007, 40, 764 OF 2008, & 120 OF 2009 3 fact the learned Subordinate Judge decided L.A.R.No.43/2003 also for deciding the other cases. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader for the appellants and those of Sri.J.Harikumar, learned counsel for the respondent in L.A.A.No.1316 & 1318 of 2007. We have also heard the submissions of Smt.M.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the respondent in L.A.A.No.40/2008. The lower court records are available and we have perused the same. Sri.Basant Balaji would assail the judgment of the reference court on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. He submitted that it was very unsafe to rely on Ext.A1. Ext.A1 property according to him was situated on the very Kesavadasapuram junction and just opposite to Kedaram shopping complex which was a most important shopping complex situated at Kesavadasapuram junction. He submitted that all the properties under acquisition were situated in between Kesavadasapuram junction and Pattom junction. According to him, properties lying in between two junctions cannot have so much importance as properties lying on the very junction. L.A.A.Nos.1316, 1317 OF 2007, 40, 764 OF 2008, & 120 OF 2009 4 3. Sri.J.Harikumar and Smt.M.Hemalatha , learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. They would justify the award of the learned Subordinate Judge. Sri.J.Harikumar would submit that there was absolutely no evidence on the part of the government to support the award passed by the land acquisition officer. Not even a copy of the basis document had been made available. He submitted that basis document was in respect of a property situated in Ulloor village which did not enjoy the direct frontage of National Highway. All the properties under acquisition enjoy the direct frontage of National Highway and properties enjoying direct frontage of National Highway were definitely superior to properties which did not enjoy such direct frontage. As for the argument that Ext.A1 property was situated at Kesavadasapuram junction and acquired property cannot have that much importance since they were not situated at any junction. Sri.J.Harikumar submitted that the acquired properties were in fact situated at more important areas of the Thiruvananthapuram city being nearer to the heart lands of the city. L.A.A.Nos.1316, 1317 OF 2007, 40, 764 OF 2008, & 120 OF 2009 5 We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned Government Pleader that Ext.A1 property was more superior to the properties under acquisition. May be it is true that Ext.A1 property was situated on the Kesavadasapuram junction, but all the acquired properties in these cases were enjoying the direct frontage of the National Highway and were nearer to the heart lands of Thiruvananthapuram city than even Ext.A1 property. The significance of Kesavadasapuram junction is only that it is at that junction that NH 47 and the MC road meet. But from the point of view of relative importance within the Thiruvananthapuram city, the acquired properties can rightfully claim slightly more value than properties situated at Kesavadasapuram area. All in all, according to us, the appreciation of evidence which came on record by the learned Subordinate Judge was proper. Importantly, there was absolutely no counter evidence on the side of the respondent. According to us, it is more or less the correct market value of the properties which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned L.A.A.Nos.1316, 1317 OF 2007, 40, 764 OF 2008, & 120 OF 2009 6 judgment. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. No costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. L.A.A.Nos.1316, 1317 OF 2007, 40, 764 OF 2008, & 120 OF 2009 7