IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1038 of 2005() -------------------------- LAR.35/1999 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- T. VASU, S/O. CHOYI, KUTHIKA VALAPPU, OPP.GASLI MASJID, THALANGARA, KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER S. RAMA CHANDRAN, S/O. SANKARAN VAIDYAR, RESIDING AT THALANGARA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE RESPONDENT(S): REFERRING OFFICER AND RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KINFRA, KASARAGOD. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH, SC FOR R2 R1 & R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A. 1038 of 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 23, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal against the award of the land acquisition reference court in LAR 35/1999. The acquisition was in respect of a property in Patla village of Kasaragod Taluk and was for the purpose of establishment of the KINFRA park. The relevant sec.4(1) notification was published on 10.6.1996. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.715/- per cent. The evidence before the reference court on the side of the appellant consisted of oral testimonies of Aws.1 to 4 and Ext.A1 document. On the side of the Government the solitary evidence was the oral evidence of RW.1 and Ext.R1 document – the basis document. The commission report prepared on the basis of local inspection was marked as Ext.X1. The claimant/appellant relied mostly on Ext.A1 Government Order. L.A.A. 1038 of 2005 2 Ext.A1 revealed a centage value of Rs.3000/-. However, the reference court became inclined to award only Rs.2000/- per cent. 2. Assailing the impugned judgment, Sri Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, would address us in detail on the basis of the various grounds raised. All the submissions of Sri Krishna Prasad were resisted by the learned standing counsel for the KINFRA and by the learned Sr. Government Pleader. We have considered the rival submissions and we have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. We have gone through the records also and made a re-appraisal of the evidence. 3. It is seen that it was Ext.A1 document which was relied on mostly by the claimants for their claim for enhancement of the land value. Under the impugned judgment the reference court has found that the property covered by Ext.A1 was comparable in all respects to the acquired property. Nevertheless, the reference court did not become inclined to award the rate of value reflected in Ext.A1 for the reason that the advocate commissioner recommended for only Rs.2000/- per L.A.A. 1038 of 2005 3 cent. We cannot agree with the learned Subordinate Judge. It was not for the advocate commissioner to fix the market value. It has been held by the Supreme Court that when advocate commissioners recommend higher value, the recommendation should be referable to some material viz. value revealed by comparable sales. In the instant case, the available document even according to the learned Sub Judge, was Ext.A1. Ext.A1 having been found to be a dependable document, the court below was not justified in accepting the advocate commissioner's report completely and re-fixing the land value at Rs.2000/-. At the same time, we are not inclined to grant the full rate seen revealed by Ext.A1. This is because we find that the market value fixation under Ext.A1 has in all probability been done at a date subsequent to the relevant sec.4(1) notification. Having considered all the relevant aspects of the matter, we feel that a sum of Rs.2500/- per cent will be the correct market value of the acquired property. Thus, setting aside the judgment and decree and allowing the appeal in part, we re-fix the land value of the acquired property in this case at Rs.2500/-. It is needless to L.A.A. 1038 of 2005 4 mention that the appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible to him under secs.23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible on account of our re-fixation. The appeal is allowed to the above extent, in the circumstances without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE The figure “Rs.2500/-” occurring in lines 16 and 19 of page 3 of judgment in LAA 1038/2005 is corrected as “Rs.2600/-” vide order dated 09/07/2010 in R.P.347/2010 in LAA 1038/2005. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) mt/- L.A.A. 1038 of 2005 5