IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 LA.App..No. 6 of 2009() ----------------------- LAR.149/2005 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: --------------- GOPALAKRISHNA KAIMAL S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI MULLOOR MANIMALA BHAVANATHIL (JAYA BHAVAN) KALIKAVU, KURAVILANGADU. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.6 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 J U D G M E N T PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. This appeal filed by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Kuravilangad Village for the construction of MVIP Branch Canal pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 10.10.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value @ Rs.11,435 per are including the property in category No.3, that is, the properties without any road frontage. The reference court would accept the case of the respondent for inclusion of his properties in category No.2 for which the Land Acquisition Officer had granted land value @ Rs.16,069/- per are. The evidence for enhancement on the side of the claimant/respondent consisted of Exhibits A1 and A2, apart from the oral testimonies of AW1 and AW2. AW2 was the Commissioner who submitted C1 commission report as well as C!(a) sketch. On the side of the appellant/Government, the only item of evidence was the L.A.A. filed. The appellant did not produce even the certified copies of the basis documents. The court below did not become inclined to rely on Exhibits A1 and A2. LAA.NO.6/09 2 2. As regards the request for upgradation of the category, the court below adopted the principles laid down by this Court in Sreedharan v. State of Kerala (1967 KLT 1067) (without referring to that decision) and held that since the remainder properties of the claimant were enjoying road frontage and since those properties were lying contiguous to the acquired properties, there was justification for treating the acquired properties also as properties having road frontage. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by Justice T.S.Krishnamoorthy Iyer in Sreedharan v. State of Kerala, that when a portion of a larger extent of property belonging to a claimant having road frontage is taken, it is not proper to treat the property taken, as property without road frontage, ignoring the circumstance that the claimant was enjoying his entire property as one holding. We, therefore, approve the upgradation of category of the acquired property from Category No.3 to Category No.2 and hold that the Land Acquisition Officer should have awarded a sum of Rs.16,069/- per are. 3. The reference court noticed that more than 1 ½ years have passed after the execution of the basis document. The court below took the view that during this period, the market value of LAA.NO.6/09 3 lands in the locality had increased and obviously, taking into account the passage of time, granted enhancement and refixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per are. The courts below took into account the factors such as importance of the locality, proximity of the property to the PWD road and also the commercial development in and around the locality. We are of the view that the court below was justified in granting additions taking into account the passage of time, since the date of the basis document. Importantly, the appellant did not adduce any counter evidence to the oral evidence adduced through AW1 and AW2 and to the commission report. We are of the view that it is, more or less, the correct value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. We do not find any reason warranting interference, and the appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn LAA.NO.6/09 4 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.A.NO.8 OF 2009 IN L.A.A.No.6 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 O R D E R PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. The delay is condoned, without issuing notice to the respondent, since we find that we are in a position to dispose of the appeal itself in favour of the respondent immediately. The C.M.A. stands allowed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn