IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 414 of 2004(C) ---------------------------------- LAR.35/1998 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/ADDITIONAL SECOND RESPONDENT : ------------------------------------------------------------ THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, FCI RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & FIRST RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KRISHNAN NAIR, KOICKALATHU VEEDU, KAITHA SOUTH MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MAVELIKKARA. ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH, ADDL.A.G. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU FOR R2 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2009 ALONG WITH LAA NO.68/2005 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : LA.App..No. 414 of 2004(C) ORDER ON I.A.NO.2133 OF 2004 IN L.A.A.NO.414 OF 2004 DISMISSED 03.04.2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE SD/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.414 OF 2004, 68, 70, 71, 74, 765 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. All these appeals are preferred by the Food Corporation of India which was the requisitioning authority. The relevant section 4(1) Notification was published on 11.03.1995. The purpose of the acquisition was for the construction of the railway siding for the appellant, Food Corporation of India. The awarding officer categorised the lands into 3 categories included in category one were dry land having road frontage and for such lands, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per are, those included in category two were wet land with road frontage and for such wet lands, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.420/- per cent, included in category 3 were wet land and dry land and for such lands without road frontage, Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.375/- per cent. Before the reference court, the claimants took out a Commission, who filed his report which L.A.A.Nos.414 of 2004 & connected cases 2 was marked in the cases as Exts.C1 and C1(a). The claimants mostly relied on Ext.A1 sale deed No.2136/94 dated 08.08.1994 revealing the land value of Rs.14,739/- per are and Ext.A2 sale deed dated 01.09.1994 revealing the land value of Rs.86,462/- per are. They also relied on the judgments in other land acquisition cases pertaining the acquisition of land in Mavelikkara Village. The claimants got themselves examined as witnesses on their side. Significantly, no counter evidence was adduced either by the Government or by the appellant acquisitioning authority. The learned Subordinate Judge on a thorough evaluation of the evidence which came on record concluded that the correct market value to be fixed for the dry lands under acquisition was Rs.50,000/- per are and accordingly, granted enhancement at the rate of Rs.33,000/- per are for the dry lands which were acquired. Similarly the court would treat the wet lands under acquisition as similar and would refix the land value of the wet lands at acquisition at the uniform rate of Rs.25,000/- per annum and enhancement was granted on that basis. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.T.P.M.Ibrahim L.A.A.Nos.414 of 2004 & connected cases 3 Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Basant Balaji and Sri.P.K.Babu, learned Senior Government Pleaders for the State and Sri.D.Somasundaram for the claimants respondents. Mr.Ibrahim Khan and learned Government Pleaders assailed the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge on various grounds in the memorandum of appeal. Mr.Somasundaram would support those findings. The records in L.A.A. No.414/2004 corresponding to L.A.R.No.35/1998 are available and we have gone through records. 3. Having analysed the evidence on record and having gone through the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, we have of the view that it is more or less the correct market value of the acquired properties at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Sub Ordinate Judge in the impugned judgment. Ext.A1 property going by the Ext.C1 commission report was certainly property comparable to the property in this case so was Ext.A2 property. Ext.A1 revealed a land value of Rs.14,739/- per are and Ext.A2 revealed land value of Rs.86,462/- per are. The commissioner's report, Ext.C1 supports the case of the claimants that their acquired L.A.A.Nos.414 of 2004 & connected cases 4 properties were atleast superior to the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2. The learned Subordinate Judge was not adopted the value revealed in Ext.A1 or A2. What he did was to fix the market value on the lower side at Rs.50,000/- per are which is roughly 60% of the value of Rs.86,462/- per are revealed in Ext.A2. It should be noticed that the evidence which was adduced by the claimants included the oral testimony of AW1 and the Advocate Commissioner's report prepared on the basis of inspection with notice to parties. There was absolutely no counter evidence on the side of the requisitioning authority or the Government. We do not find any infirmity about the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge that the fixation of the dry land under acquisition is Rs.50,000/- per are. It is apparent that the fixation of market value for the wet lands under acquisition has been made by the learned Subordinate Judge on the basis of the value which he fixed for the dry land and wet land. According to us, there must be some correlation between value of dry land and wet land situated within the same local area. The dry land as well as the wet land in question in these cases were lying L.A.A.Nos.414 of 2004 & connected cases 5 contiguously. It is clear that the ratio fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer between values of wet land and dry land in his award was unrealistic. We also noticed that relatively a small extent of wet land alone has been acquired in these cases. Considering the amount deducted by the Land Acquisition Officer towards reformation charges in L.A.R.No.14/1998, we have no difficulty to hold that even if the principle of deducting reclamation charges from the value of corresponding dry charges, the value of the corresponding wet lands fixed by the reference court can be justified. The result of the above discussion is that the market value awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge is also approved by us. All these Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate court. In the circumstances parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pac