IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 LA.App..No. 1071 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.126/2005 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE SECRETARY, MULLASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & RESPONDENT 1 & 3 ---------------------------------------- 1. FR.JACOB NJERINJAMPILLY, C.M.I.PRIYOR, ST.THOMAS MONESTRY, PAVARATTY P.O., THRISSUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.GENERAL, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM FOR R1 SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANSAR K.J. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.NO. 1071 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The appellant is the Secretary, Mullassery Grama Panchayat and is the second respondent in L.A.R. No.126 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2007 in the said reference case. The reference court by the impugned judgment enhanced the land value and refixed it at the rate of Rs.24,975.25 per Are as against Rs.13,408/- per Are fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Challenging the land value fixed by the reference court, the second respondent has come up in appeal. 2. The extent of property acquired is 0.1750 hectares comprised in Survey No.76/9 of Annakara Village. The property was acquired for the construction of Mini Industrial Training Centre at Mullassery. Section 4 (1) notification is dated 23.11.2001. It is the case of the claimant that the acquired property is situated in an important locality, that it is suitable for setting up commercial establishments and that it has more potential value L.A.A.NO.1071/2007 2 than the property covered by the basic document. Besides the locational importance of the property, it is further submitted that there are cultivations with irrigation facilities. The claimant has also listed the various commercial, public and private institutions situated in the locality which, according to him, are very important. He claimed Rs.1,00,000/- per cent with statutory benefits. 3. The respondents in the reference case denied the averments in the statement filed by the claimant. According to the respondents, the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is fair and reasonable and, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to compensation more than what is awarded. 4. Before the reference court, the claimant was examined as AW1. and Exts.A1 to A5 were produced and marked on his side. On the side of the respondents, the valuation officer was examined as RW.1 and Exts.R1 and R2 were marked. Ext.C1 is the commission report. The reference court discussed the locational importance of the property and its nearness to various commercial, public and private institutions. Ext.A1 sale deed relied on by the claimant was rejected by the reference court finding that the claimant has failed to establish that the said property is similar and L.A.A.NO.1071/2007 3 similarly situated as that of the acquired property. The reference court also discussed the documents produced as Exts.A2 to A4 and for the reasons stated rightly held that those documents cannot be relied on for the purpose of fixing the land value. The locational importance of the property sworn to by AW.2, the Commissioner, was taken into consideration by the reference court. On evidence, the court below held that the acquired property is situated in a commercial centre and that Ambadi Theatre, Ambady Hostel and other commercial institutions are situated within a radius of 10-15 metres of the acquired property. The reference court had also taken note of the fact, on admission by RW.1, that the property mentioned in the basic document is not situated in a commercial area. 5. For the purpose of fixing the market value of the property in the absence of other evidence, the reference court took into consideration the value shown in Exts.R1 and R2 documents. The reference court considered the location of the acquired property, its potential value and the use to which the acquired property is reasonably capable of being put to and the further fact that it is lying adjacent to a main road and found it just and reasonable to fix the market value by giving an enhancement of 75% from the market value in Ext.R1 document. Thus, the market value L.A.A.NO.1071/2007 4 of the property was refixed at Rs.24,974.25 per Are. The fixation of land value at the said rate is just, proper, reasonable and based on evidence available on record. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ L.A.A.NO.1071/2007 5 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A. NO.1071/2007 JUDGMENT 4th September, 2008 L.A.A.NO.1071/2007 6