IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 938 of 2009(D) -------------------------- LAR.178/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 IN LAR: ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENT NO.2 IN LAR: -------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL VAHID, TC 48/1004(2), KARIMBU VILAMBALATHARA POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ABDUL BUHARI, T.C.48/1004(2) KARIMBU VILAMBALATHARA POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R1 & R2 SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, TRIDA FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, ALONG WITH CO NO. 81 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------- L.A.A. No.938 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Manacaud village of Thiruvananthapuram District for the purpose of widening of LMS-Attakulangara Road as per Section 4(1) notification dt. 7.8.2004. Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of Rs.2,97,521/- per Are. Before the reference court documents Ext.A1 to A14, R1 to R4 series and oral testimonies of AW1 and 2 was the evidence. It was mainly on the basis of Ext.A3 judgment in LAA.1330/2005 that the claimants sought enhancement. Ext.A3 judgment was in respect of acquisition for the Pazhavangadi over-bridge situated in a locality much more important than the area of property under acquisition. Under Ext.A3 this court had re- fixed the value of the land from more than 6.5 lakhs per Are to Rs.9 lakhs per cent corresponding to Rs.22,23,900/- per Are. Though the claimants did not produce the relevant L.A.A.938/2009-D 2 judgment, they relied on the judgment of the same court in LAR.47/2004. It was in respect of acquisition of land in Vanchiyoor, another part of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Under LAR.47/04 the LA Officer had awarded land value @ Rs.4,11,665/- per Are and the reference court had re-fixed the land value at Rs.28,00,000/-. It appears to us that relying on Ext.A3 judgment and keeping in mind the judgment in LAR.47/04 the learned Subordinate Judge re- fixed land value to Rs.12,00,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs.29,64,000/- per Are. 2. Sri. Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader would assail the judgment of the reference court stating that there is no comparison between the A3 property for that matter in LAR.47/04 and the property under acquisition. Those properties were much more superior. The court below was not at all justified in granting much more value than the value granted for those properties. Learned counsel fore the respondent per contra would justify the enhancement granted under the impugned judgment. It was submitted that if the passage of time between Section 4 (1) notification in those two judgments and in the present case is taken into account, there is justification for granting L.A.A.938/2009-D 3 even more than what is awarded under the impugned judgment. 3. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed before us and having gone through the impugned judgment we are of the view that the value re-fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is excessive. First of all Ext.A3 property was situated in a much more important area than the property under acquisition. Even the LA Officer had awarded much higher value than the property under acquisition for A3 property and also for properties covered by judgment in LAR.47/04. Percentage of enhancement granted under Ext.A3 judgment and under the judgment in LAR.47/04 is approximately 300%. We do not know how the learned Subordinate Judge could grant enhancement at more than the above rates for the property under acquisition. It should be noticed that the property under acquisition was far inferior to the property covered by A3 since even in 1997 much higher value than the value granted to the property under the impugned judgment have been granted to the property under Ext.A3 judgment. At the same time having taken into account totality of the evidence on record we are inclined to grant enhancement by 300% on the value granted L.A.A.938/2009-D 4 by the LA Officer. Granting enhancement in that way, market value of the land under acquisition will have to be re- fixed at Rs.11,90,084/- which we round off to Rs.12,00,000/-. Appeal is allowed as above. It is needless to mention that the claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb