IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No.477 of 2008(D) ------------------------------- LAR.82/2005 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------------ P.A.DEVASIA, NEDUMATTATHIL, PUNAMATTATHIL, KALATHOOR, KURAVILAGADU. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.477 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. The acquisition was of land in Kuravilangadu village for the purpose of Muvattupuzha Vallery Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer included the land in category 3 (lands without any road frontage) and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12156/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A6, Oral testimony of AW1, commission reports C1 and C1(a)plan submitted by the Government apart from Ext. R1 series of documents on the side of the Government. There was no counter oral evidence adduce on the side of the Government. The court below found, on the basis of the commission report as well as Ext.R1 series, that the property under acquisition was part of larger holding of the claimant and that unacquired portion of the holding continues to enjoy the frontage of the PWD road. Thus the court below found that the inclusion of the property under acquisition in category 3 was not proper. Ext.A4 judgment was the document LAA.No.477/2008 2 relied on mostly by the claimant before the court below. Ext.A4 was in respect of acquisition of property situated on the opposite side of the same PWD Road. Acquisition in Ext.A4 was more than four years prior to the present acquisition. Under Ext.A4, the land value was refixed by the court at Rs.23524/- per Are. The court below, however, did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A4 on the reason that Ext.A4 property was enjoying the direct frontage of the road while the property under acquisition is included in category 3 without road frontage. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.P.C.Haridas, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and those of Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent. 4. Sri.Haridas would argue that the court below went wrong in not placing any reliance on Ext.A4. According to him, the reasons stated by the learned Sub Judge for rejecting Ext.A4 is in conflict with the learned Sub Judge's own findings that the property under acquisition being part of larger holding enjoyed by the claimant is eligible to be included in category 1. We find merit in the above submissions. We are of the view that the LAA.No.477/2008 3 court below should have placed reliance on Ext.A4. Ext.A4, as already indicated, is pursuant to acquisition of more than 4 years earlier and suitable additions are given to the correct market value of land based on Ext.A4 will come to Rs.25,000/- per Are. It is also brought to our notice that this court in L.A.A. No.737/2008 refixed the value of similar land at Rs..25,000/- per Are. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and modify the judgment under appeal and refix the value of land under acquisition at Rs.25,000/- per Are. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. It is clarified that the appellant/claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk