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 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 853 of 2010(C) -------------------------- LAR.24/2004 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S):/ CLAIMANT ---------------------- AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI,S/O.UNNIN, THOLUR HOUSE,POONTHAVANAM,PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): /RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR,GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON,SC,GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN, GP THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A.No.853 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT PIUS C. KURIAKOSE ,J. The claimant is the appellant. His property in Kizhattur village of Perinthalmanna Taluk was acquired pursuant to section 4(1) notification published on 23.11.2001 for the purpose of expansion of Poonthanam temple. The land acquisition officer fixed land value at the rate of Rs.1333/- per cent. The reference court evaluated the evidence adduced by the parties which consisted of oral evidence of AWs 1 and 2, RW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A6, R1 to R18 and Commissioner's reports Exts.X1 to X3 and re-fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.5000/- per cent. In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging what is described as the gross inadequacy of the market value redetermined by the reference court. 2. Heard the submission of Sri.P.Shamsudin the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.Krishna Menon, learned L.A.A.No.853 OF 2010 2 standing counsel for the acquisition authority, Guruvayoor Devaswom and Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, the learned Government Pleader. Sri.P.Shamsudin would submit that the court below was not justified in discarding Exts.A1 and A2. Though Ext.A1 is a post notification document, the same could have been relied on in the absence of pre-notification documents. Ext.A1 is a document executed in due course as the same is in favour of the Local Service Co-operative Bank. Ext.A2 was a pre notification document and should have been relied on for determining the market value of the land under acquisition. Sri.V.Krishna Menon, learned standing counsel for the requisition authority, submitted that what has been presently granted by the learned Subordinate Judge was the maximum that can be granted to the appellant. There is no necessity for the learned Subordinate Judge to rely on the post notification document Ext.A1 as there were pre-notification documents available. Ext.A2 was executed between two claimants. None of the parties to Ext.A2 was prepared to mount the witness box. Ext.A2 is not a genuine document. Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, the learned Government Pleader L.A.A.No.853 OF 2010 3 would support Sri.V.Krishna Menon in his submissions. 3. We have considered the rival submissions addressed before us. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. The submissions of Mr.P.Shamsudin notwithstanding, we are not in a position to disapprove action of the learned Subordinate Judge in discarding Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was a post- notification document and as such could not have been relied on for determining the market value of the land under acquisition. We are taking into account Ext.A1 for the limited purpose of having an understanding the escalation of price in the real estate market in the area. Ext.A1 in our opinion reflects a much higher value due to the passage of time in the area. The learned Subordinate Judge in our opinion was not justified in discarding Ext.A2 altogether. We feel that taking into account the increasing trend in the value of land in the real estate market in the locality and on an over all appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available in the case, the market value of the lands under acquisition can be re-fixed at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per cent as against Rs.5,000/- per cent fixed under the L.A.A.No.853 OF 2010 4 impugned judgment. At the same time, we are not inclined to award compensation to the appellant at the above rate. We notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Sub Collector, Gadwal v. Smt.Sreelatha Bhoopal (AIR 1997 SC 2552), Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi v. Mridula Jyothi Rao (AIR 2007 SC 614) and State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Muhammed Mateen Wani (Air 1998 SC 2470). We further notice that the lands under acquisition in this case were large in extent. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decisions, we deduct 10% from the value of Rs.6,000/- fixed. This means that for each cent of land acquired from the possession of the appellant, he will be entitled to the land value at the rate of Rs.5,400/- per cent. Thus enhanced compensation is awarded at the rate Rs.400/- per cent over and above what is awarded by the reference Court. 4. The appeal is allowed as above. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total re- fixed compensation. However while provision is made for L.A.A.No.853 OF 2010 5 interest under Section 28, the section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this court in its order dated 29/7/2010 in C.M. Application No.1291/2010. The decree copy will be issued only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memo is remitted. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this appeal. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dmb