IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 LA.App..No. 1425 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.4/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- GEORGE THOMAS, VADAKKEKALATHIL, ALAPPUZHA MURI, SEA-VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRIR.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 1425 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is the appellant in this appeal which pertains to acquisition for tourism department of property situated in Mullackal village in Alappuzha district. The relevant section 4(1) notification was on 05/07/2000 and the land acquisition officer categorised the property under acquisition into two categories namely original dry land and and reclaimed dry land. For original dry land, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 30,973/- per Are and for reclaimed dry land, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.28,400/- per Are. The appellant being not satisfied, facilitated reference under Section 18. Before the reference court, the evidence on the side of the appellant consisted of documents A1 to A8 and his own oral testimony as AW1. There was Commissioner's report and mahazer marked as Ext.C1 to C3 and C3(a) and C3(c). On the side of the government, there was no counter oral evidence. The documentary evidence consisted only of Exts.R1 and R2 LAA.No.1425/07 2 mahazers relating to the taking over of possession. Ext.A1 was a sale document dated 22-09-1988 revealing a land value of Rs. 1,73,862/- per Are. Exts.A2, A3 and A4 were all post notification documents and according to us, rightly rejected from consideration by the reference court. The reference court did not rely on Ext.A1 for the reason that it is a fancy price which is paid as per Ext.A1. Ext.A5 was the judgment of the court in respect of acquisition of property in the same village. Ext.A5 pertains to acquisition pursuant to a Section 4(1) notification dated 03/05/1999 and under Ext.A5, the value fixed by the court is Rs. 1,00,000/- per Are. In fact, the Commissioner in Ext.C1 reported that Ext.A5 property is much inferior to the acquired property. Appellant's case was to the effect that his property is much superior. Learned Subordinate Judge would observe that there is no comparison between Ext.A5 property and the acquired property. Ultimately, however, what the learned Judge did was to place some reliance on Ext.A5, A6, A7 and A8 ( being judgments pertaining to acquisition pursuant to later Section 4(1) notifications) and fix the value of the land at Rs. 1,00,000/- per Are. LAA.No.1425/07 3 2. We have heard Sri.Azad Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleader. Sri.Azad Babu would argue that the learned Subordinate Judge was not at all justified in rejecting Ext.A1. According to him, Ext.A1 was of the year 1988 and was executed at a time when the present acquisition was not in contemplation at all. He would further submit that Ext.A5 should not have been rejected. Acquired property was obviously much more superior to Ext.A5 property and therefore considerable increase should have been given on the value reflected in Ext.A5, it was submitted. 3. All the submissions of Sri.Azad Babu were very forcefully resisted by the learned Government Pleader. According to him, it is the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which has been fixed by the reference court. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the view that the learned Judge was justified in not placing reliance on Ext.A1 or for that matter documents Ext.A2, A3 and A4. At the same time we feel that the learned Judge was not justified in ignoring LAA.No.1425/07 4 Ext.A5. After all Ext.A5 property was situated in the same village and going by Ext.C1 Commissioner's report to which no objections were filed by the Government, was in respect of property which was much inferior to the acquired property. We notice that Ext.A5 is pursuant to notification more than one year prior to the relevant notification in this case. The acquired property is situated in a very important area of Alappuzha Municipal towns, which is one of the ancient Municipal town in the state. We also rely on the Commissioner's report and find that the acquired property was slightly superior to the property covered by Ext.A5. Taking into account the passage of time between the relevant Section 4(1) notifications and the superiority of the acquired property reported by the Commissioner in Ext.C1, we are of the view that the correct market value to be determined in respect of the acquired property is Rs. 1,20,000/- per Are. This means that the appellant will be entitled for enhanced land value over and above the enhancement granted by the reference court at Rs. 20,000/- per Are. We do not find much merit in the submission of Sri.Azad Babu that compensation was not paid to the appellant for the entire extent which was taken over LAA.No.1425/07 5 from his possession. It is seen that the compensation awarded by the officer and the court is covered by Mahazer revealing the extent and the appellant was signatory to the same. It is too late for the day to raise a complaint regarding the extent mentioned therein. Sri.Azad Babu voiced a grievance that the reference court has granted statutory interest under Section 28 only upon the enhanced market value of the land. According to him, interest is admissible on the enhanced total compensation. We find force in his submission. The result is that the appeal will stand allowed to the extent of refixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/-. per Are. The appellant will be entitled for interest on the total enhanced compensation which takes in solatium admissible under Section 23(2), additional amount admissible under Section 23 (1A) allowed by the reference court and by this court at the rates provided in Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE LAA.No.1425/07 6 sv. LAA.No.1425/07 7