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 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 LA.App..No.223 of 2001(A) ------------------------------------ LAR.78/1996 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS: ---------------------------------------- 1. PIUS THOMAS, NELLIPUZHA, PULLAPPALLI KARA, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 2. CHECHAMMA THOMAS, W/O THOMAS DO. DO. 3. JOSEPH @ BABICHEN, S/O THOMAS DO. DO. 4. XAVIER, S/O DO. DO. 5. MARIYAMMA, D/O. DO. DO. 6. LEELAMMA, DO. DO. 7. LILLIKUTTY, D/O THOMAS, DO. DO. 8. ROSAMMA, DO. DO. 9. KOCHU THRESSIYAMMA, DO. DO. 10. KUNCHERIA, S/O THOMAS, DO. DO. 11. KUNJANNAMMA, D/O THOMAS DO. DO. 12. JAYANAMMA, DO. DO. 13. FONSAMMA, DO. DO. [APPELLANTS 2 TO 13 REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, 1ST APPELLANT] BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) L.A.A. NO.223/01 -2- RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants are in appeal. Their property in Kidangoor village was acquired pursuant to section 4(1) notification published on 24/09/93 for the purpose of upgradation of the Ettumanoor- Erattupetta state highway. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6072/- per cent corresponding to Rs.15,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, claimant relied mostly on Exts.A1 and A3 sale deeds. Ext.A1 sale deed was dt.15/05/05 in respect of seven cents of land and an old building. The L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -2- learned Subordinate Judge did not place any reliance on Ext.A1 due to the following reasons:- 1) Ext.A1 is a post notification document. 2) On the property covered by Ext.A1, there existed a building which is not separately valued. 3) Ext.A1 property was un-comparably smaller in extent. 2. Ext.A3 was a pre-notification document in respect of an extent of 10.5 cents of land reflecting a land value of Rs.90500/- per cent. Ext.A3 was rejected by the Reference Court on the reason that neither of the parties to Ext.A3 was examined as a witness. The court below ultimately relied on Ext.A4 judgment also produced by the appellants and granted a proportionate enhancement and re-fixed the value at L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -3- Rs.32,000/- per Are corresponding to Rs.12,950/- per cent. 3. In this appeal, the claimants have raised various grounds challenging what is described as the gross inadequacy in the market value determined by the court. Sri.Mathew John (K), the learned counsel for the appellants addressed very strenuous arguments before us on the basis of the grounds raised. He drew our attention to Exts.A1 and A3. According to him, though Ext.A1 is a post notification document, nobody can have a case that it is an artificial price that has been shown in Ext.A1. Ext.A1, he submitted is on the basis of the public auction conducted by the local Church. Ext.A1 document does show the existence of a building, but according to the learned counsel, the L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -4- building had practically no value since it was old and dilapidated. According to him, the proper course to be done is to deduct a small portion from the value reflected in the document towards value of the building and to make reasonable deductions for the passage of time between the date of document and the date of section 4(1) notification. 4. The learned counsel submitted that at any rate, Ext.A3 could have been relied on. Drawing our attention to 51A of the Act, counsel submitted that it was not even suggested to PW1 during cross examination that Ext.A3 is a document brought into existence with any oblique motives. 5. Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader would resist the L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -5- submissions of Mr.Mathew. According to her, Ext.A4 was also a document strongly relied on by the appellants and the court below cannot be blamed in not relying on Ext.A4. The reasons stated by the court below in not relying on Exts.A1 to A3 is quite reasonable. 6. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The duty of the Reference Court is to evaluate the evidence and find the correct market value of the property at the relevant time i.e. determine the value which a willing seller will receive from a willing purchaser. When the considerations which are relevant for determination of market value in land acquisition reference cases are kept in mind, we feel that the court below was not justified in L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -6- completely discarding Exts.A1 and A3, particularly Ext.A3. It is true that no party to Ext.A3 was examined as a witness. But Ext.A3 was marked in view of section 51A through the first appellant. It was not suggested to AW1 in cross examination that Ext.A3 does not record a genuine transaction. We rely on Ext.A3 and to a certain extent on Ext.A1 and re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.90,000/- per cent. 7. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under sections 23 (2), 23(1A) and under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. Parties are directed to L. A. A. No.223 of 2001 -7- suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- The amount shown as “Rs.90,000/-” per cent in the last line of paragraph 6 (page 6) of the judgment dated 31/03/2010 in L. A. A. No.223/2001 is corrected as Rs.19,000/-” per cent vide order dated 21/05/2010 in I.A.1568/2010. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)