IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 1502 of 2002 (A) -------------------------------- LAR.219/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- K.K.SOBHANA, SOBHA NIVAS, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOTTOOLI, CALICUT - 16. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUMANGALA P.N. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1502 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This is an appeal by the claimant who is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation re- determined by the Land Acquisition Reference Court. Reference Court has fixed land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent. Exts.A1 and A2 were two documents put in evidence by the appellant/claimant. Ext.A1, according to us, was rightly rejected by the court below since it was a post notification document executed some three years ago after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Ext.A2 was judgment of the same court in respect of acquisition of another item of property for the same purpose. It is seen that in L. A. A. No.1502 of 2002 -2- Ext.A2, the property under acquisition was in the same village. But the date of relevant Section 4(1) notification in Ext.A2 was some nine months earlier than the date of Section 4(1) notification in the present case. Ext.A2 was not relied on by the Reference Court on the reason that Ext.A2 has not become final. It is brought to our notice that L.A.A.1044/01 preferred by the Government against Ext.A2 has already been disposed of and the re- fixation of land value at Rs.30,000/- per cent for Ext.A2 property has now been approved. 2. The learned Government Pleader would resist placing any reliance on Ext.A2. According to her, even though a Commissioner was taken to the properties, the appellant/claimant did not want the Commissioner to inspect Ext.A2 property and compare the property with the property under acquisition. There is some L. A. A. No.1502 of 2002 -3- merit in the above submission of the learned Government Pleader. But at the same time, we notice that both the properties were in the same village and the acquisition was also for the same purpose. Thus, Ext.A2 judgment had some relevance in the determination of the market value of the property under acquisition. 3. We have perused the entire records pertaining to the appeal filed against Ext.A2. We find from the records that it was a higher land value which had been granted by the Land Acquisition Officer for Ext.A2 property. In other words, according to Land Acquisition Officer's award, the property under acquisition in this case was having only 75% of the value of Ext.A2 property. We are of the view that there is justification for granting enhancement to the property under acquisition based on Ext.A2. L. A. A. No.1502 of 2002 -4- Accordingly, we re-fix the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.22,500/- per cent. The appeal is allowed to the above extent, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. 4. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of the re-fixation of land value done under this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-