IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 406 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.237/2006 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT IN LAR: ----------------------------------------------------- ROY ABRAHAM,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.K.A.MAMMEN,KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PARIYARAM MURI, ELANTHUR, PATHANAMTHITTA. NOW RESIDING AT C.C.36/750,PRESIDENCY FLATS, CHAMMINI ROAD, KALOOR P.O. KOCHI. BY ADVS. SMT.BEENA JOHN, SRI.TOMY XAVIER PARAPPURAM. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN LAR: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE SECRETARY, ELANTHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, SRI.B.PREMNATH (E). THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011 ALONG WITH LAA NO.346 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NOs. 406, 407, 346 & 793 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Claimants as well as the requisitioning authority, Elanthoor Grama Panchayath, being aggrieved by the award of the Land Reference Court have preferred these appeals. L.A.A.346/09 and L.A.A.793/09 are the appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority, Panchayat. L.A.A.406/09 and L.A.A.407/09 are the appeals preferred by the claimants. The acquired properties were in Elanthoor village of Pathanamthitta District. The acquisition was pursuant to S.4(1) notification published on 3.11.2004 and was for the purpose of constructing a stadium, shopping complex and car L.A.A. NOs. 406, 407, 346 & 793 OF 2009 -:2:- parking area for the Panchayat. Acquisitions were for both wet and reclaimed lands. For the wet lands the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.24,571/- per Are. For the reclaimed lands he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.30,714/- per Are. It was relying upon Ext.B5 document executed in favour of the Supreme head of Malankara Orthodox Church that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value as mentioned above. 2. Before the Reference Court the claimants mainly relied upon Exts.A2, A4 and A5 documents and also on the Commissioner's reports (Ext.C1 series). On going through the impugned judgment we find that the Court below has not placed any reliance on Exts.A2, A4 and A5. At the same time relying upon to a certain extent on the Commissioner's report the Court below L.A.A. NOs. 406, 407, 346 & 793 OF 2009 -:3:- took the view that the acquired property were superior to Ext.B5 properties. In that view of the matter what the Court below did was to increase the value to a considerable extent. The value of wet lands were fixed at Rs.50,000/- per Are and that of the reclaimed lands were fixed at Rs.74,000/- per Are. 3. In the appeals preferred by the claimants it is contended that the value redetermined by the Court below is inadequate whereas in the appeal preferred by the Panchayat it is contended that the Court below has awarded excessive values. 4. Sri.B. Premnath, learned counsel for the Panchayat and Smt. Beena John, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants addressed arguments in support of the grounds raised in the respective appeal memoranda filed by them. L.A.A. NOs. 406, 407, 346 & 793 OF 2009 -:4:- We have given our anxious considerations to the rival submissions addressed before us. We have also gone through the impugned judgments. We have made a reappraisal of the documents relied upon by the Court below, particularly Exts.A2, A4, A5 and B5 and Ext.C1 series. We notice from the impugned judgment that the learned Subordinate Judge has not given any cogent reason as to why no reliance is placed on Ext.A2, A4 and A5. At the same time we are of the view that there is ample reason for discarding Exts.A2 and A4 from consideration. 5. Ext.A5 is a pre-notification document executed more than three years prior to the relevant S.4(1) notification. Ext.A5 property is in the same village. Ext.A5 property is reclaimed land similar to the reclaimed land involved in these cases. Ext.A5 reflects land L.A.A. NOs. 406, 407, 346 & 793 OF 2009 -:5:- value of Rs.40,000/- per cent. Ext.A5 certainly has some probative value in determining the correct market value of the property. At the same time we notice Ext.B5 basis document also. From Ext.B5 document we are convinced that the same is a genuine transaction brought into existence by the parties in the normal course of business. Ext.B5 property is wet land. If the value of reclaimed land is calculated on the basis of Ext.B5 property the same will come to only Rs.15,500/- per cent applying the ratio fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award. The advocate Commissioner's report will show that the properties under acquisition were superior to Ext.B5 properties. We feel that the correct value of the acquired properties should have been in between the value reflected in Exts.B5 and A5. Considering the superiority L.A.A. NOs. 406, 407, 346 & 793 OF 2009 -:6:- enjoyed by the acquired properties we are inclined to find that the correct value of the acquired properties included in the category of reclaimed lands is 2/3rd of the average value reflected in Exts.B5 and A5. 6. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the ratio at 100:61 between the reclaimed lands and wet lands. The Court below on the contrary fixed the ratio at 100:67. According to us a more correct ratio between the values of these two categories is 100:65. Hence we are inclined to apply that ratio. Applying that ratio the correct market value which were categorized as reclaimed lands by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Court below is refixed at Rs.91,146/- per Are. Similarly that of the wet lands we refix the land value at Rs.59,245/- per Are. The appeals preferred by the claimants are L.A.A. NOs. 406, 407, 346 & 793 OF 2009 -:7:- allowed. The appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority are dismissed. 7. Needless to mention that the claimants will be entitled to all statutory statutory benefits which are provided under Sections 23 (2), 23(1A) and S.28 of Land Acquisition Act on the total refixed compensation to which they become eligible. The parties shall suffer their respective costs. The Registry will ensure that total Court fee payable on the appeal memoranda is paid before issuing decree copy. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-