IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No.301 of 2006 (A) & C.O.85/06 ------------------------------- LAR.183/2002 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------------- 1. BRIGITHAMMA BONIFACE, RESIDING AT KANDACHEMKULAM, CHIRAKKADAVU EAST. 2. ANNIE PHILIP, RESIDING AT YOGIA VEETTIL, IRITTY. 3. SUCY ISSAC, RESIDING AT MANALODIPARAMBIL, CHENGANACHERRY, 4. CICILY GEORGE, RESIDING AT MANNOOPARAMBIL, MALAPPURAM, REP. BY DO. DO. 5. JOLLY CHERIAN, RESIDING AT PANCHARA PUTHENPURAYIL, VELIYANADU. 6. ANCY ROY, RESIDING AT IYPANPARAMBILKUNNEL, KOOTHUPARAMBU. 7. ANTONY GEORGE, RESIDING AT VETTIKKATTU, MUKKAM. 8. ANTONY JACOB, RESIDING AT VETTIKKATTU, MALAPPURAM, LA.App..No.301 of 2006 (A) & C.O.85/06 -2- 9. AMMINI JACOB, RESIDING AT KALLUVAYALIL, KUMBANY, PALA, 10. GRACY SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT KANIYAPURAYIDOM, POONJAR SOUTH. 11. VINCENT ANTONY, RESIDING AT VETTICKATTU, CHIRAKKADAVU.P.O, KOOVAPPALLY. 12. JOSE ANTONY, RESIDING AT VETTIKKATTU, MALAPPURAM. (ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.BONIFACE BERNARD, S/O BERNARD, KANDACHEMKULAM, CHIRAKKADAVU EAST P.O. PONKUNNAM) BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. CHIRAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHIRAKKADAVU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R2 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009 A/W C.O.85/06 AND LAA.302/06 & C.O.73/06, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.301 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.85/06 & L. A. A. No.302 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.73/06 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J LAA.301/06 is preferred by the claimant in LAR.183/02 while LAA.302/06 is preferred by the claimants in LAR.187/02. The memoranda of cross objections are preferred by the Requisitioning Authority, the Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat. These cases pertain to acquisition of land at Ponkunnam for the purpose of development of the Private Bus Stand at Ponkunnam. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 21/04/02. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded L. A. A. No.301 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.85/06 & L. A. A. No.302 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.73/06 -2- land value at the rate of Rs.2,46,478/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment enhanced the value by Rs.1,12,147/- per Are. In the appeals preferred by the claimants they contend that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is inadequate while in the memoranda of cross objections filed by the Requisitioning Authority, it is urged that the enhancement granted is excessive. The claimants/appellants claim further enhancement to Rs.7,41,000/- per Are. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.A.A.Mohammed Nazir, the learned counsel for the appellants and those of Sri.V.G.Arun, the learned counsel for the cross objector/the L. A. A. No.301 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.85/06 & L. A. A. No.302 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.73/06 -3- Requisitioning Authority. We have scanned the judgment of the Reference Court and we have made a re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record. The evidence before the Reference Court which tried the two cases jointly consisted of Exts.A1 to A6, R1 and R2, oral evidence of AWs.1 to 5, reports Exts.X1 and X2 submitted by two Commissioners who conducted local inspection. Ext.A2 was the same as Ext.R1, the basis document. The Reference Court noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer after finding that Ext.A2 document is in respect of a comparable property did not become inclined to award even the value shown in Ext.A2 for the reason that during the time gap between Ext.A2 and Section 4(1) L. A. A. No.301 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.85/06 & L. A. A. No.302 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.73/06 -4- notification there was a decline in the price of land in the area. The learned Subordinate Judge rightly found that there was no basis for the view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer that there is a decline in the price of land during the period from Ext.A2 and the date of Section 4(1) notification. According to the court below, Exts.A2 to A4 cannot form the basis for determining the market value. Ultimately what the court below did was to rely on the totality of the evidence including the Commission Report to accept the claim of the claimants that the property was situated in the heart of Ponkunnam town in a commercially most important area. To a certain extent Ext.A2 itself was taken as basis and additions were made L. A. A. No.301 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.85/06 & L. A. A. No.302 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.73/06 -5- taking into account the importance of the locality and the commercial potentiality of the property. It was thus (to a great extent) based on guess work that the court below re-fixed land value. 3. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having made a re-appraisal of the evidence, we feel that the court below was a little miserly while fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition. According to us, based on Ext.A2 itself, the market value of the land could have been fixed at Rs.1,30,000/- per cent noticing the time gap and three years and seven months between the date of Ext.A2 and date of promulgation of Section 4(1) notification. There is cogent evidence in the form L. A. A. No.301 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.85/06 & L. A. A. No.302 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.73/06 -6- of Commissioners' Report which will show that Ext.A2 property was enjoying direct frontage of National Highway 220 and also that the property under acquisition was superior to Ext.A2 property. When these aspects are taken into account, the market value of the properties under acquisition can be safely fixed at Rs.1,40,000/- per cent. Hence, we allow the appeals preferred by the claimants and re-fix the value of lands under acquisition at Rs.1,40,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs3,45,800/- per Are. The appellants/claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23 (2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced L. A. A. No.301 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.85/06 & L. A. A. No.302 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.73/06 -7- compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. The appeals are allowed as above. The Memorandum of Cross Objections are dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in the appeals and the memoranda of Cross Objections. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-