IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 1012 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.4/2006 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANTS -------------------- 1. JAISON PAUL, KOCHUMUTTATH, ENANALLOOR. 2. BENNY PAUL, KOCHUMUTTATH, ENANALLOOR. 3. MINI BENNY, KOCHUMUTTATH, ENANALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A.NO.1012 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The claimants have come up in appeal against the award of the Reference Court in L.A.R.No4/2006 of Muvattupuzha Sub Court. L.A.R.No.4/2006 was a reference initiated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the appellants, who were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of 0.50 Ares of land belonging to them for the purpose of widening of Muvattupuzha-Thodupuzha road pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 1.4.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer granted land value at the rate of Rs.30,900/= per Are, which was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.46,350/= per Are (enhancement given being 50% of what had been granted by the Awarding Officer). Evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 which was a certified copy of sale deed No. 143/2005 executed by one Mathew in favour of the Government represented by the Executive Engineer, K.S.T.P and AW1-oral testimony of the second appellant. On the side of the Government, the same consisted only of Ext.R1, which was a copy of the mahazer LAA.1012/08 2 prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of taking possession. Ext.A1 was admittedly a property situated 1 k.m away from the acquired property. Ext.A1 property was also lying by the side of the existing Muvattupuzha-Thodupuzha road. Ext.A1 document was executed on the basis of a compromise between the Government and the owner of the property. Ext.A1 property had also been proposed to be acquired for the same purpose but pursuant to another notification under Section 4(1). Ext.A1 revealed the land value of Rs.80,000/= per cent. The reference court did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1 for the reason that Ext.A1 was executed on the basis of a compromise between the parties and also that Ext.A1 property was situated at a distance of 1 k.m away from the acquired property. There is no evidence to show the comparison between the parties of Ext.A1 property and the acquired property. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri. T.A.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Government Pleader. Sri.T.A. Unnikrishnan would argue that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in ignoring Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was also situated in the same panchayat area and LAA.1012/08 3 was similar in all respects to the acquired property. Ext.A1 as well as the acquired property were having the very same advantage of direct frontage of the existing Muvattupuzha-Thodupuzha road. Government is a party to the document and therefore, the value paid as per the document was binding on the Government. Government Pleader would submit that since Ext.A1 property was executed some two years after the notification in this case and that since it was a direct sale, taking into account the benefits which the party would have received in acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act by way of solatium benefit under Section 23(1) (a) and even statutory interest, a price of Rs.80,000/= was fixed. There was no evidence to show that the property in Ext.A1 was comparable and similar to the acquired property. 3. While I do notice merit in the submissions of the Government pleader that Ext.A1 document being a document executed some two years after relevant notification under Section 4(1), it is not possible at any rate to grant the same value to Ext.A1 property even if there is evidence to hold that Ext.A1 property is comparable to the acquired property, I have to say that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in completely ignoring Ext.A1 on the reason that LAA.1012/08 4 Ext.A1 is on the basis of a compromise. Ext.A1 may have some relevance provided there is other evidence before the court to s ow that Ext.A1 property is comparable and similar to the acquired property. One significant aspect of the matter which went unnoticed by the court below was that Ext.A1 was executed some two years prior to the notification under Section 4(1). At least by passage of time, the land value in the locality would increase. Possibility of increase in the land value due to emergence of the improved Thodupuzha-Muvattupuzha road in its other stretches also could not be ruled out. The above aspects and similarity of the acquired property and the property covered by Ext.A1 are all aspects upon which the appellants were expected to adduce evidence of better quality than mere oral evidence. 3. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the court below giving opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence. The respondent Government also can produce the basic document and prove the same by examining anybody connected with the acquisition. The appellants can adduce further evidence in whichever form they want. LAA.1012/08 5 The result is impugned judgment is set aside. L.A.R is remanded back to the court below. Further trial will be completed and revised judgment would be passed as directed above by the reference court within five months of the parties entering appearance pursuant to the order of remand. Refund full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to Sri.T.A. Unnikrishnan. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. cl