IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 497 of 2006(D) -------------------------- LAR.9/2003 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- CHAVAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. P.K.MOIDUTTY, S/O.P.K.MOOSA HAJI, PALAYOOR.P.O, CHAVAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL FOR R1 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.2036/2006 IN LAA497 /2006 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 16.7.2010 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.497 of 2006 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim,J. The requisitioning authority is in appeal against judgment of the reference court. An extent of 0.0128 Hectares corresponding to 3 cents, situated in Manathala Village in Chavakkad Muncipality was acquired for construction of a Market/Shopping Centre and for widening of Variyankulam Road. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 15.4.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.29,700/- per Are, corresponding to Rs.12,019/- per cent, relying on Ext.R1 basis document. Before the reference court, claimant produced Exts.A1 & A2 documents. Ext.A1 is a Sale Deed pertaining to 7/8 cents of property situated in Chavakkad Muncipality in the very same village. But Ext.A1 is executed in the year L.A.A.497/06 2 1992, i.e:, after a lapse of 5 years from the date of Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A2 is also another Sale Deed for an extent of 7/8 cents. Ext.A2 is dated 27.12.1984. The value per cent in Ext.A1 is Rs.1,20,000/- whereas the value per cent in Ext.A2 is Rs.40,000/-. From Ext.C1 & C1(a), it is evident that the commissioner had inspected the property only on 20.7.2005, i.e: much after the acquisition and development of the land. It has come out in evidence that the basis document, Ext.R1, relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer was executed on 21.12.1984. There is a time lag of 2 years and 4 months for the date of acquisition. In Ext.R1, 0.0101 Hectares of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. It has also come out in evidence that property covered by Ext.R1 is situated about 50 metres away from the acquired land. The reference court found that the acquired land is situated in a more prominent locality, very near to various public L.A.A.497/06 3 places like Chavakkad Muncipal Market, vegetable market, Muncipal Office, Registrar Office, Sub-treasury, Taluk Office, Sub Jail, etc. The Muncipality had acquired the property for the construction of market and shopping complex, which itself will show the importance and prominence of the locality. It has come out in evidence that the acquired property is situated in the heart of Chavakkad Town. The reference court observed that Ext.R1 document alone cannot be relied on for fixing the land value. Taking note of value covered by Exts.A1 & A2 documents, the reference court arrived at a conclusion that there was a steep escalation of prices in between 1984 and the date of acquisition. Considering all these aspects the reference court found that fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.44,550/- per cent will only be just and proper. Accordingly enhancement was granted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the L.A.A.497/06 4 appellant/Muncipality contended that reliance placed on Exts.A1 & A2 by the reference court is highly illegal and erroneous. It is submitted that Ext.A2 and Ext.R1 are documents of the very same period and there is no reason to discard the value in Ext.R1. Since there is evidence to the effect that the property covered by Ext.R1 is very near to the acquired land, the price could have been adopted, is the contention. It is evident that property covered under Ext.A2 is also situated within the very same village and the very same Muncipality. In our considered opinion, we find no reason to discard Ext.A2 as basis for fixation of the market price. Eventhough Ext.A2 was executed in the year 1984 and showed higher value, the reference court fixed only a rate of Rs.44,550/-. In the totality of circumstances we are of the opinion that fixation of land value was only just and reasonable, considering prominence of the locality and the potential of the acquired land. We do not find any material L.A.A.497/06 5 grounds to interfere with fixation of land value by the reference court. In the result, the appeal deserves no merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb