IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 716 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.90/1997 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- PUTHIYAKATHU MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. IBRAHIM, MELANGADI, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT AIRPORT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH LAA 105/2005 ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ L.A.A. NOS: 716/2004, 105, 120,123,124, 176, 284, 655 & 656 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th September, 2009. JUDGMENT PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. L.A.A Nos: 176/2005 & 716/2004 are instituted by the claimant who is not satisfied by the award passed by the Reference Court in LAR No: 90/1997. L.A.A.176/2005 is prepared by the requisitioning authority against the award passed by the reference court in L.A.R.90/97. All the other appeals are by the requistioning authority and they are directed against the awards in the connected Land Acquisition Reference cases. All these appeals pertain to acquisition of lands in Nediyiruppu village for the expansion of the run way of the Calicut Airport. The acquisitions were pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 15.11.1993. The Land Acquistion Officer included the properties under acquistion in these cases in category 6 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6916/- per cent. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence which constituted all the oral testimonies of A.Ws 1 to 4 and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimants and testimonies of R.W.1 and Ext.B1 basis document on the side of the respondents L.A.A.716/2004 etc. 2 (Government and the Requisitioning Authority). Apart from the Commissioner's report Exts.C1 to C6 in those of the cases decided under the common judgment would refix the land value of the properties under acquisition at Rs.10,000/- per cent. The requisitioning authority challenges the enhancement granted by the reference court as excessive, the appellant in L.A.A.716/2004 challenges the same as inadequate. 2. Shri. N.N.Sugunapalan, senior counsel appears for the Calicut Airport Authority and Adv Shri. Babu S. Nair, learned counsel for the appellant in L.A.A.716/2004 have addressed us very strenuously and extensively. It was argued by Adv. Shri. Babu S.Nair that the rejection of Ext.A1 sale document by the Reference Court was not justified. According to the learned counsel Ext.A1 revealed land value of Rs.24,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that even based on Ext.B1 the basis document there was justification for awarding more than the rates presently awarded. Ext.A1 property, according to the learned counsel was found by the reference court to be inferior to the properties under acquisition. Ext.A1 property was a quarry lying at a distance of 6 to 8 feet from the road level. The properties under acquisition were pucca garden lands. Mr.Babu S. Nair submitted that the properties under L.A.A.716/2004 etc. 3 acquisition were enjoying access to roads as reported by the Advocate Commissioner. The distance to main road was not much. Learned Counsel submitted that in earlier acquisitions pursuant to earlier notifications under Section 4(1) for the same purpose the court below has refixed the value at higher rates and on account of the emergencies of the Airport the value of the present property should have been fixed at higher than those values. 3. Adv. Shri. N.N.Sugunapalan, counsel for the requisitioning authority however, would assail the award of the learned Sub Judge as excessive. According to him there was no justification for awarding anything more than 40% than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The adoption of the belting system which is adopted, is approved by this Court and by the Supreme Courts. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Ext.B1 property was enjoying road frontage of the National Highway whereas the property under acquisition is category 6 situated far away from the National Highway. The Commissioner's report was not acceptable. The Commissioner has at any rate not reported that the properties were enjoying direct road frontage. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have also considered those items of L.A.A.716/2004 etc. 4 evidence to which our attention was drawn by Adv Shri Babu S. Nair and the learned senior counsel. We are of the view that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the properties under acquisition were superior in quality to the property covered by Ext.B1 is a finding which can be approved. At the same time, we are in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge that in terms of market value Ext. B1 property was more valuable than the properties under acquisition. But we notice that Ext.B1 was executed more than one year prior to the relevant Section 4(1) notification in this case. We feel that the market value of Ext.B1 property at the time of the present acquisition should have been at least Rs.12,000/- per cent. This aspect of the matter it appears to us has not been taken note of by the Learned Subordinate Judge. We feel that if this aspect is also taken note of, the market value of the properties under acquisition could have been fixed at a better assessment at Rs.10,500/- per cent. 5. The result of the above discussion is that L.A.A.716/2004 will stand allowed to the extent of refixing their market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.10,500/- per cent. The appeal will stand allowed without any order as to costs. 6. All the other appeals will stand dismissed confirming the L.A.A.716/2004 etc. 5 decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. It is needless to mention that the total enhanced compensation to which the claimants including the appellant in L.A.A.716/2004 become entitled to by virtue of this judgment will carry all statutory benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquistion Act. It is made clear that the appellant in L.A.A No: 716/2004 alone will be entitled for the refixation of market value made under this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- L.A.A.NO: --------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: