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 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 121 of 2001() ------------------------- LAR.183/1997 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: --------------- KADEESA UMMA, W/O PAKRUKUTTY HAJI 'AMPRA', PUTHOOR OMASSERY DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 121 OF 2001 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The Government is in appeal against the award of the land acquisition reference court. The purpose of the acquisition was for widening of a road in Omassery Village in Kozhikode. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 17-7-1995. Land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5783.69 per cent. The reference court relying mainly on Ext.A1 sale deed re-fixed land value at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per cent. The land acquisition officer awarded a total amount of Rs.87,802/- towards value of the building which existed on the acquired property. The reference court relying mainly on the Commissioner's report would re-fix the compensation for building at Rs.1,63,896/-. 2. The learned Govt. Pleader has assailed the award of LAA. N0. 121/01 -2- the reference court on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. He submitted that Ext.A1 sale deed should not have been relied on. He would attack the award of enhanced compensation towards value of building even more forcefully. According to him, the Advocate Commissioner was a layman who was not assisted by any technical expert for valuing the building. His recommendation has been completely accepted on the reason that the Government has not filed any objections. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, irrespective of whether objections are filed by the Government the reference court should have considered whether there was any material to support the recommendation of the Advocate Commissioner regarding enhanced value for the building. 3. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We are not impressed by LAA. N0. 121/01 -3- the argument of the learned Government Pleader that reliance placed on Ext.A1 by the reference court was not justified. We find that Ext.A1 was a pre-notification document and that the same has been properly proved by examining the vendee as PW-3. The evidence of PW-3 would inspire confidence in the mind of the court, and the court below found that Ext.A1 reveals a genuine transaction. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no warrant for interfering with the re-fixation of the market value of the land by the learned Subordinate Judge. However, we find some merit in the submission of the learned Govt. pleader that the reference court should not have blindfoldly relied on the commissioner's report. It is true that the Government had not filed any objections to the commissioner's report. But when the valuation of a building is taken up the court below should have enquired whether the Advocate Commissioner who was a layman without any technical expertise was LAA. N0. 121/01 -4- assisted by any technical expert. On reading through the Commissioner's report what is seen is that he had the assistance of a carpenter for taking measurements of the wood work in the building. Even the Commissioner does not claim any such assistance in the matter of valuing the other aspects of the building. Therefore, according to us, the Advocate Commissioner's recommendation for higher value towards value of the building should not have been accepted in full. According to us, the party should not have been granted more than Rs.1,33,896/- as total compensation for the building. The result of the appeal will be in the following terms: The re-fixation of the market value of land under the impugned judgment is confirmed. The value of the structure which existed on the acquired property is re-fixed at Rs.1,33,896/-. The appeal is thus allowed to the above extent. It is made clear that the appellant will be entitled LAA. N0. 121/01 -5- for all statutory benefits admissible under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the L.A. Act on the total enhanced compensation which becomes eligible to him by virtue of compensation re-fixed as above. There is no order as to costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ksv/- LAA. N0. 121/01 -6- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. LAA. No. 121 of 2001 JUDGMENT 23rd June, 2009