IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No.465 of 2003 (A) --------------------------------- LAR.27/1996 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------- STEPHEN, S/O. OUSEPH, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.465 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Heard Sri.Joby Jose, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.K.Babu, Senior Government Pleader for the state. 2. This appeal is by the claimant and the same pertains to acquisition of land for the construction of Kanjiramattom bye-pass road for the Thodupuzha municipality. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 07/04/92. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.37,050/- per Are corresponding to Rs.15,000/- per cent. The evidence before the Reference Court consisted mainly of Ext.A1 Sale Deed No.1702/87 dt.25/07/87. Ext.A1 L. A. A. No.465 of 2003 -2- sale deed was in respect of a small plot extending to 2 cents. Ext.A1 Sale Deed was executed in favour of a Church by PW2. PW2 was examined and he testified that the acquired property was superior in quality and value to Ext.A1 property. It was not even suggested to him in cross examination by the Government Pleader that the value shown in Ext.A1 is not the correct value or that the same is a fancy price paid by the Church who was eager to purchase the property. Ext.A1 reveals a centage value of Rs.2,37,500/- per cent. The learned Sub Judge excluded Ext.A1 from consideration stating the reason that the purchaser in Ext.A1 was not examined. We are afraid that the learned Sub Judge went wrong. Section 51A would justify acceptance of certified copy of Ext.A1 even without L. A. A. No.465 of 2003 -3- examining anybody. The evidence of Ext.A1 is inspiring. According to us, the learned Sub Judge has gone wrong in rejecting Ext.A1 altogether. But at the same time, we are not inclined to award the full land value reflected in Ext.A1. 3. Having taken into account the totality of the circumstances attending on this case, we feel that the correct value of Ext.A1 can be fixed at Rs.75,000/- per cent. Accordingly, allowing this appeal we re-fix the land value at Rs.75,000/- per cent. This appeal will stand allowed. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhancement to which he becomes eligible by virtue of the re-fixation L. A. A. No.465 of 2003 -4- of land value done under this judgment. 4. This appeal is allowed as above with proportionate costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-