IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 228 of 2006(B) -------------------------------------- [LAR.NO.130/2001 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR] .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- T.O.STEPHEN, S/O.OUSEPH, THOTTAPPILLY HOUSE, MEKKALADY, KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.ROSE MICHAEL. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.228 Of 2006 ---------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The claimant in L.A.R.No.130/2001 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur is the appellant. The reference court held that the claimant is not entitled to get any enhancement in land value and therefore, closed the reference case confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. The extent acquired is 4.05 Ares of land. The acquisition was for the purpose of Water Treatment Plant at Malayattoor. Section 4(1) notification was dated 13.9.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.2,531/- per Are. 3. The claimant was examined as AW1. Ext.A1 is the copy of the sale deed No.2306/1996. The claimant as AW1 tendered evidence before the reference court stating that the acquired land and Ext.A1 land are similar and similarly situated. The claimant deposed that Ext.A1 land is situated only 50 metres away from the acquired land and that both lands are facing the same Panchayath road. ::2:: L.A.A.No.228 Of 2006 4. I have perused Ext.A1. Ext.A1 reveals that the said property is also facing the road. Ext.A1 sale deed is registered in the year 1996. Section 4(1) notification in this case was published on 13.9.1999. There is a gap of three years between the sale of Ext.A1 property and acquisition. 5. The sale deed referred above though marked as Ext.A1, the reference court refused to rely on the said document. The reference court observed that the Church has got the financial capacity to purchase the property whatever be the price, the object of the Church is only to acquire the property and hence it is clear that the value shown in Ext.A1 assignment will not reflect the real value existed at the time. This observation of the learned Judge is without any basis. There is not evidence let in by either side challenging the sale price in Ext.A1 or the circumstances under which Ext.A1 was executed in 1996. Therefore, the reason stated by the learned Judge that the Church has got financial capacity to purchase the property whatever be the price and the object of the Church is only to acquire the property cannot be a reason not to rely on Ext.A1 for ::3:: L.A.A.No.228 Of 2006 the purpose of fixing the land value of the property. The oral evidence tendered by the claimant stating that the acquired land and Ext.A1 land are similar and similarly situated and that both properties are facing the very same Panchayath road and that the distance between the two properties are only 50 metres is not discredited in the cross-examination. 6. It is true that the appellant/claimant did not taken care to take out a commission to compare the acquired land with Ext.A1 land or to examine either the vendor or vendee of Ext.A1 in order to substantiate his contentions. Even then, a remand for the said purpose is not necessitated in this case, in view of the fact that the claimant has tendered evidence regarding the comparability of both lands which was not discredited in any manner in the cross-examination of the respondent. The first respondent has also not taken care to adduce any evidence in this regard. I accept the evidence tendered by the claimant and relying on Ext.A1 sale deed the market value of the acquired land can be assessed. In 1996, Ext.A1 property was purchased at the rate of Rs.12,209/- per Are. The extent of Ext.A1 is 37.53 Ares. ::4:: L.A.A.No.228 Of 2006 The acquired land is 4.05 Ares. Taking into consideration the land value shown in Ext.A1 and the gap of three years between the purchase date of Ext.A1 property and Section 4(1) notification, I fix Rs.15,000/- per Are as the land value. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award under challenge is set aside. The claimant is entitled to realise Rs.15,000/- per Are and all the statutory benefits. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-