IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 569 of 2000() ------------------------- LAR.121/1992 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT - CLAIMANT -------------- A. MOIDU HAJI, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM, P.O.PERAVOOR, DIST. KANNUR. BY ADV. MS. A.C.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE SUB COLLECTOR (LA), THALASSERY. 2. THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS REP. BY THE SUPDT. OF POST OFFICE, THALASSERY DIVISION, THALASSERY P.O., DIST. KANNUR. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI P.K.BABU SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- LAA 569 OF 2000 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 5, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal being aggrieved by the refixation of the market value of the acquired property by the Reference Court. The acquisition was for the purpose of establishing a post office at Paravoor town. The relevant sec.4(1) notification was published on 17.1.1989. The land acquisition officer relying on the basic document awarded land value at Rs.1932/- per cent. The basic document was rightly rejected by the Reference Court. Before the Reference Court the appellant relied on Exts.A1 to A3 and another document which was not marked in evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge rightly did not rely on Exts.A2 and A3 or the other document which was not marked in evidence. Ext.A1 was a document of the year 1986. It pertains to a small plot of land situated only 15 meters away from the acquired property. Ext.A1 property fetched a centage value of Rs.8000/-. What the learned Subordinate Judge has done was to rely on Ext.A1 after “making reasonable deductions LAA 569 OF 2000 2 from Ext.A1”. We can certainly approve the learned Subordinate Judge's action in making deductions on Ext.A1 due to the smallness of the plot. But, at the same time, additions should have been made for the passage of three years time. When additions are made that way, the market value of Ext.A1 at the relevant date would come to more than Rs.8000/- per cent. The maximum deduction which could have been made due to the smallness of the land, according to us, is only Rs.3000/- per cent. This will mean that the correct market value of the property to be fixed will be Rs.5000/- per cent. 2. Allowing the appeal, we refix the market value of the property at Rs.5000/- per cent. The appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible to him under secs.23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible on account of our re-fixation. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. In the circumstances, the parties will suffer their costs throughout. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-