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 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 197 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.29/2003 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- GIJI MATHEW, THEKKEL HOUSE, NADUKKARA KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 418 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos. 197 & 418 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of a bridge. The properties were in Muvattupuzha village. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on Ext.A4 basis document and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.17,646/- per Are. In fact the land value disclosed in Ext.A4 basis document was Rs.29,411/- per Are. The Land Acquisition Officer deducted 40% on the reason that the property covered by the basis document was more important than the properties under acquisition and it was on that reason the value was fixed at Rs.17,646/- per Are. Even though the several documents were produced by the appellant/claimant before the Reference Court, the learned Sub Judge placed reliance mainly on Ext.A4 itself and also on Ext.X1 report submitted by an advocate commissioner, who had inspected the properties under acquisition as well as the properties covered by Ext.A4. The Reference Court, however, did not become inclined to award the LAA.No.197 & 418/2008 2 land value at Rs.29,411/- per Are reflected in Ext.A4 observing as follows; “It has come out in evidence that Ext.A4 property is situated in more important area when compared to the present properties. There is no material to come to a conclusion that Ext.A4 property and the property covered by the present references are similar and similarly situated. Hence, the prayer of the claimant cannot be granted”. 2. In these appeals, the appellant mainly contend that the court below should have refixed the land value at Rs.29,411/- per Are. i.e. the centage value reflected in Ext.A4 itself. In fact the claim in appeals is limited to the above amount. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.V.M.Kurian, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader. We were taken through the impugned judgment as well as through Ext.X1 commission LAA.No.197 & 418/2008 3 report and the oral testimony rendered by AW3 the advocate commissioner. Sri.Kurian submitted that the observations of the learned Sub Judge that the evidence is to the effect that the acquired property is inferior to the property covered by Ext.A4 is contrary to the evidence actually on record. 4. Even though the submissions of Sri.Kurian were resisted by the learned Government Pleader, who would support the impugned judgment on the various reasons stated therein, having made a reappriasal of the evidence, particularly Ext.X1 commission report and testimony of the commissioner as AW3, we are of the view that the court below was in error in concluding that the property under acquisition was inferior to the property covered by Ext.A4 and according to us, the appellant should have been awarded centage value of land as reflected in Ext.A1. Under the above circumstances, allowing these appeals and in modification of the land value fixed under the impugned judgment, we refix the value of land under Acquisition at Rs.29,400/- per Are. The appeals will stand allowed . But in the circumstances without any order as to costs. The appellant/claimant will be LAA.No.197 & 418/2008 4 entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act to which she becomes eligible by virtue of refixation under this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk