IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 177 of 2010(D) -------------------------- LAR.38/2003 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- V.T.THOMAS, VARACHERI, PALA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 177 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. The land under acquisition was in Lalam Village and the purpose of acquisition was the upgradation of Ettumanoor -Erattupetta State Highway. The relevant Section 4(1) nonfiction was published on 20/5/2000. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 80,233/- per Are. The Reference Court, on the basis of the evidence which came on record, refixed the land value at Rs.1,25,233/- per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised by the claimant contending that the market value refixed by the court below is grossly inadequate and Sri.Mathew John, learned counsel for the appellant addressed us on the basis of all those grounds. Sri.Mathew John lastly referred to the judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.987/2009, which is a case in respect of the very adjacent property for which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the same value as was awarded by him to the property LAA.No.177/2010 2 in this case. The learned counsel submitted that under that judgment this court has refixed the land value at Rs.2,50,00/- per cent. The learned counsel requested that the same rate be granted for the properties under acquisition in this appeal also. 3. All the submissions of Sri.Mathew John were very stiffly resisted by the learned senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha.T.Thankappan. According to her, it is a very fair compensation that is fixed by the learned Sub Judge. She submitted that it has been very clearly stated by this court in the judgment in L.A.A. 987/2009 that the said judgment will not be a precedent for other cases. Therefore, it is not proper for this court to rely on that judgment. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence with reference to the items of evidence placed before us by Sri.Mathew John. We find that the documents, which were put in evidence by the appellant claimant before the Reference Court, were the same documents which were put in evidence by the claimant in LAR No. 41/2003 corresponding to L.A.A. No.987/2009. In fact, the Sub Court by the judgment in L.A.R. LAA.No.177/2010 3 No.41/2003 had awarded value of Rs.2 Lakhs per Are. But under the impugned judgment, on practically the same set of evidence, the learned Sub Judge has fixed the land value at Rs.1,25,233/- only. 5. The question, which seriously arises now, is as to whether the rate fixed by this court in L.A.A. No.987/2009 for the property covered by L.A.R. No.41/2003 can be awarded to the appellant. We find from the evidence that the property in that case and the property in the present case are adjacent properties being situated at Kurisupally junction which is one of the most important junctions in the area of Pala Municipality. Since the property in L.A.R. No.41/2003 and the property in the present case were adjacent properties and were having the same value even according to the Land Acquisition Officer, and since the same set of evidence was adduced before the Reference Court in both these cases, we feel that, notwithstanding the observation of this court in L.A.A. No.987/2009, the rate awarded in that case can be awarded to the appellant also. According to us, awarding a different rate in the present case will amount to ignoring the legislative impediment which underlies provisions LAA.No.177/2010 4 like Section 28A of the Act. Accordingly, we allow the appeal refixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. 5. It is needless to mention that the appellant/claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2) 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. The Registry, while drafting the decree , will have due regard to the directions we have given regarding the eligibility for interest under Section 28 in the order dated 25/2/2010 in C.M.Appl.314/2010. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. But in the circumstances, the parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk