IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 L.A.App..No. 1345 of 2000(A) --------------------------------------- LAR.25/1998 of PRL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................................................. APPELLANT(S) / CLAIMANT (S): ------------------------------------------- C.L.DEVASSY, S/O.CHENGINIMATTOM LONAPPAN, CHENGINIMATTOM HOUSE, EAST CHALAKUDY, BEHIND R.C. CHURCH. BY ADVS. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU SRI.T.C.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S) / RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J J ................................................................................. L.A.A.NO.1345 OF 2000 ........................................ Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009. .................................................... J U D G M E N T PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. This is an appeal filed by the claimant. The case pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of Chalakudy by- pass in N.H.47 in pursuance to Section 4(1) notification dated 12.12.1978 and the property was situated in Kizhakke Chalakudy Village in Mukundapuram Taluk and was not far away from the Chalakudy South junction. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value @ Rs.1,841/- per cent. The reference court in the first instance refixed the land value at Rs.2424/- per cent. The claimant preferred an appeal as LAA 196/1996. This court considering the said appeal set aside the judgment of the reference court and remanded the LAR back to the reference court giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce fresh evidence. Pursuant to the above order, further evidence was adduced and the impugned judgment is now passed by the Sub Court, refixing the land value at Rs.4,424/- per cent. We heard the submissions of L.A.A.NO.1345 OF 2000 2 Sri.K.N.Chandrababu, learned counsel for the appellant, and those of Sri.P.K.Babu, senior Government Pleader. The appellants counsel drew our attention to Ext.A14 judgment of the reference court and also Ext.A16 judgment of this court confirming Ext.A14. The learned counsel pointed out that under Ext.A14, which was in respect of the property situated very near to the acquired property, this court has finally held that the market value is Rs.13,500/-. The counsel argued that the same rate should be granted to the appellant's property also. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant were opposed by Mr.P.K.Babu. He submitted that Ext.A14 property is not comparable to the acquired property. The acquired property was agricultural property while Ext.A14 property was a pucka commercial property situated on the very South junction of Chalakudy. 2. We have anxiously considered the rival submission addressed at the Bar. We are of the view that the learned Sub Judge is justified in discarding Ext.A14 property, though it was L.A.A.NO.1345 OF 2000 3 not strictly comparable with the acquired property. We do not think that the acquired property in this case was agricultural land and the property is without any commercial potentiality. It is clear from the records that upon the acquired property, there existed a residential building belonging to the appellant. The acquired property is described in the award as `purayidom' and may be it is true that there were coconut trees and other cultivations on the acquired property. That does not mean that the property did not have any commercial potentiality. The distance between the acquired property and Ext.A14 property was not much. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the court below could have relied on Ext.A14 and made appropriate deductions on the value revealed in Ext.A14 and re-fix the market value of the acquired property. In our opinion, relying on Exts.A14 and A16 itself, the correct market value of the acquired property at the relevant time could be refixed at Rs.6,500/- per cent. 3. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent and L.A.A.NO.1345 OF 2000 4 the appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation on account of the refixation of land value at Rs.6,500/- . The parties are directed to suffer their costs. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible u/s.23(2) and 28. Since the award in LAR was prior to 30.04.1982 appellant will not be entitled for the amounts due u/s.23(1) (a). PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. ami.