IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 753 of 2006() ------------------------------------- LAR.129/2000 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): SUPPL. 2ND RESPONDENT (IMPLEADED AND AMENDED AS PER ----------------------- ORDER IN IA. 2178/2003 DTD. 22.11.2003.) THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KALLYANAPARAMBIL ABDU HAJI, S/O. AHAMMED HAJI, KIZHUNGATHOLE, P.O.ELAMKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, ALONG WITH LAA. NO.678 OF 2006 & LAA. NO.679/2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ORDER ON IA. NO.4402/2006 IN LAA. NO.753/2006 DISMISSED 15/03/2011 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.753/06, 678/06 and 679/06 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 Judgment Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The Kerala Water Authority has preferred these appeals through their Executive Engineer challenging what is described as the excessiveness of the compensation redetermined by the reference court. The properties were in Elamkulam village and were acquired at the instance of the K.W.A. for the construction of a treatment plant, sump site and residential quarters for U.W.S.S., Perinthalmanna. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 6.1.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on Ext.R1 basis document and fixed the land value at Rs.5828/- per cent. Before the reference court, there was evidence of A.W.1, one of the claimant and R.W.1, a representative of the land acquisition authority apart from three Commissioner's report, Exts.C1 to C3 on the side of the Government and requisitioning authority, the only document Ext.R1, the basis document. Though the claimants did not LAA 753/06 etc. 2 produce documents, they relied on various documents which have been discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the argument of the claimants that the documents discarded by the L.A.O. should be relied on. Finally, what the learned Subordinate Judge did was to rely on the Commissioners' report and find that the properties under acquisition were comparable mostly to Ext.R1 basis document. The court actually found that the basis document had certain minus factors as the same was in L shape in contrast to the acquired properties which were regular plots. The court below noticed that the basis document reflected a land value of Rs.7250/- per cent and that the Land Acquisition Officer without assigning any reason made a deduction of 25% therefrom. What the court below did ultimately was to do away with the rate and refixed the value at Rs.7250/- per cent, which is the value actually paid as per Ext.R1 document. 2. Even though Smt.S.Ambika Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority ably supported by her junior Smt.Mary made very strenuous arguments before us assailing the judgment of the reference court, we are not at all LAA 753/06 etc. 3 persuaded to accept those arguments. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We find that the evidence available on record was very correctly appreciated by the learned Subordinate Judge. He had kept in mind all relevant factors while fixing the market value of the land. According to us, the learned Subordinate Judge could have granted same enhancement over the correct price reflected in the basis document in view of the fact that the properties under acquisition were regular plots unlike the basis document which was in L shape. However, in the absence of any Memorandum of Cross Objections filed by the claimants, we are inclined only to confirm the award of the reference court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd LAA 753/06 etc. 4 LAA 753/06 etc. 5