IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 969 of 2005() ------------------------- LAR.59/2003 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT -------------------------------- 1. O.P.POLLY ALIAS PAUL, S/O.SRI. OOKEN POULOSE, NO.1, LUIZ GARDEN, S. KALAMASSERY, K.D.PLOT P.O., PIN-683 109. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS & BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., PALARIVATTOM. ADV. SRI.T.M.MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.V.J.JOHN FOR R1 SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009,ALONG WITH LAA.973/05 AND CON.CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.969/05, 973/05, 1522/08 and 2000/08 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 J U D G M E N T PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. All these appeals pertain to award of enhanced land value by the reference court for properties which were acquired in connection with the construction of the over bridge at Kalamassery. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 2.1.2002 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value @ Rs.1,15,860/- per Are corresponding to Rs.46,887/- per cent. This was against a claim of Rs.10 lakhs per cent towards land value and other claims towards compensation for injurious affection and like counts. The evidence before the reference court consisted, mainly of Exhibit A1 sale deed dated 18.12.2001 executed prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification and the oral testimony of the claimant in L.A.R.No.59/2003 corresponding to L.A.A.No.959/05). On the side of the appellant, evidence consisted only of documents pertaining to land acquisition files. No counter oral evidence was significantly L.A.A.Nos.969/05 & con.cases -2- adduced on behalf of the Government in any of these cases. The learned Subordinate Judge on an evaluation of the evidence found, in our opinion, correctly that the basis document relied on by the Awarding Officer was not dependable. Moreover, it was noticed that no endeavour had been made by the Government to produce the basis document and to prove the same for justifying the Land Acquisition Officer's award based on the basis document. It was seen that Exhibit A1 document revealed a centage value of Rs.1,89,873/- per Are. It became evident that A1 property is situated in a less important area than the acquired property. Nevertheless, the learned Judge noticed that Exhibit A1 was executed in favour of a mobile telephone service company and that the purchase was for the purpose of establishing a mobile tower. On that basis, the court assumed that the value reflected in Exhibit A1 was higher than the market value prevailing in the locality. Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the correct market value of the property at the relevant time at any rate will not be less than 40% of the value reflected in Exhibit A1 and ultimately what the learned Judge did was to fix the market value of the acquired properties at 40% of the value revealed in Exhibit A1. L.A.A.Nos.969/05 & con.cases -3- 2. Having gone through the judgment under appeal and having noticed the important circumstance that the Government did not adduce any counter evidence, we are of the view that the rate presently fixed by the reference court under the impugned judgment is more or less equal to the prevailing market value of the property at the relevant time. Obviously, the properties are situated on the commercial heart-land of the Kalamassery Municipal Town. The properties have nearness to a large number of commercial and educational institutions and establishments. In the absence of any counter evidence from the side of the Government an on account of the failure to produce and prove the basis document, it has to be found that the market value arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge is almost the correct market value of the property at the relevant time. We do not find any warrant for interfering with the impugned judgments. The appeals are dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn