IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 176 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.40/2002 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT IN THE LAR -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT IN THE LAR ------------------------------------------- 1. NEELAKANTA KAIMAL, N/O. RAYAKAIMAL, PEPPATHIYL (NILAYAKODE), MANAKKAD. 2. REGHUNATHAN KAIMAL, S/O. NEELAKANTA KAIMAL, PEPPATHIYL (NILAYAKODE), MANAKKAD. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008 ALONG WITH LAA NO. 363 OF 2007 & LAA NO. 515 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.566 OF 2007 IN L.A.A.NO.176 OF 2007 DISMISSED. 6.8.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.Nos.176, 363 & 515 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 6th August, 2008 JUDGMENT These three appeals by the Government pertain to acquisition of land in Manakkad village for the purpose of widening of Thodupuzha-Ramamangalam road pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 18.8.1999. The land acquisition officer would fix land value at the rate of Rs.11291/- per cent which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs.33,350/- per cent. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to A4 and Ext.C1 Commissioner's report apart from the oral evidence of A.W.1 on the side of the claimant-respondent. On the side of the appellant the evidence consisted of Exts.R1 to R6, copies of the detailed valuation statements and mahazars relating to the acquisition. No counter oral evidence was adduced by the Government. Exts.A1 to A3 were post notification sale deeds. Even the Advocate Commissioner who had prepared Ext.C1 had reported that there is no comparison between the acquired properties and the properties covered by Exts.A1 to A3. The learned Subordinate Judge therefore rightly ignored Exts.A1 to A3 from the reckoning for determining the market value of the properties. Ext.A4 was a sale deed dated 22.3.1997 and the same LAA Nos.176, 363 & 515/07 - 2 - was executed more than two years prior to the relevant Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A4 was executed in favour of the Tribal Welfare Department of the Government. Ext.A4 property was found correctly by the learned Subordinate Judge to be situated in an interior part of the Thodupuzha municipal town. It was found that compared to Ext.A4, the acquired properties were far more superior. Ext.A4 reflected a land value of Rs.29,000/- per cent. The court below found that in another case LAR No.16/01 the court had granted enhancement of 15% and relied on Ext.A4 and granted increase on the value revealed by Ext.A4 taking into account the passage of time. The court below virtually followed the decision in LAR No.16/01 and refixed the land value for the acquired properties above 15% of the value reflected in Ext.A4 and would refix land value at Rs.33,350/-. Having considered the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and those of Mr.K.K.Chandran Pillai, counsel for the claimants and having gone through the judgment of the reference court and having reappreciated the evidence before the court below, I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was very reasonable in his approach and has awarded the correct market value which would have been paid by a willing purchaser to a willing seller at the LAA Nos.176, 363 & 515/07 - 3 - relevant time. The only question to be considered is whether the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in LAR No.16/01 has attained finality. The Registry reports that L.A.A.No.729/04 filed by the Government against LAR No.16/01 was dismissed and another L.A.A. filed by the claimant is posted as “to be spoken to”. Since it is clear that the appeal filed by the Government against LAR No.16/01 has been dismissed, these appeals can be proceeded with as though the enhancement granted as per LAR No.16/01 has attained finality from the Government's point of view. The result is that I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the reference court. All the appeals will stand dismissed. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE