IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 1639 of 2008(D) --------------------------- LAR.2/2000 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, AIRPORT, KANNUR. BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.K. BABU RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT ----------------------- POYITTIATTIL BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, SREE HARI NIVAS, P.O. ELAMPARA. ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN FOR R1 SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A. 1639 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated: MAY 26, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This appeal preferred by the Government is directed against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Thalassery in LAR 2/2000. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Keezhallur village for the purpose of construction of Kannur Air Port. The relevant sec.4(1) notification was published on 9.3.1998. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.468.48 per cent only. The claimant sought for a reference under sec.18 and the Reference Court in the first instance refixed the land value at Rs.1500/- per cent. The Government preferred appeal and this Court considering the Government's appeal set aside the judgment of the Reference Court and remanded the land acquisition reference back to the Reference Court. The impugned judgment has been passed pursuant to L.A.A. 1639 of 2008 2 the above order of remand. 2. On the side of the claimant the documents produced are Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is a pre-notification document executed in favour of LIC of India and it reveals a land value of Rs.30,000/- per cent. Ext.A2 is a document which revealed much higher land value than what has been given by the land acquisition officer. Ext.A3 is judgment of the same court in LAR 246/2001. The learned Subordinate Judge did not rely on Ext.A1 obviously for the reason that Ext.A1 was a purely commercial property situated in the best area of the town. Ext.A2 was also not specifically relied on by the learned Sub Judge. Ext.A3 was judgment in a case pertaining to acquisition for the same purpose. Under Ext.A3 the Court had refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.5000/-. The Court noticed that unlike Ext.A3 property which was a fertile land cultivated with cashew trees, the acquired property was a rocky area without any cultivation. The Court also noticed that the claimant had not filed any cross- objections in the appeal which the government had preferred against the award at the rate of Rs.1500/- per cent. Ultimately what the court did was to find that the claimant was entitled to L.A.A. 1639 of 2008 3 proportionate increase based on Ext.A3 and refixed the market value at Rs.3000/- per cent. 3. We have heard the submissions of Mr. P.K.Babu, learned Government Pleader, and those of Sri K.V.Pavithran, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It is brought to our notice that Ext.A3 judgment is set aside by this Court and the LAR in which Ext.A3 was passed has been remanded to the Reference Court for fresh disposal. It was suggested to the Government Pleader and Mr. Pavithran that the impugned judgment can be set aside and the issue can be remanded. Both sides, however, submitted that it will be ideal if this Court decides the issue finally. While we agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that there is justification for some enhancement, we are of the view that the court below was not justified in refixing the compensation at Rs.3000/-. It should be remembered that the claimant had not filed any cross-objections to the appeal which the Government had preferred against the award of compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per cent. To a certain extent it can be found that the claimant was satisfied with the award of Rs.1500/- per cent. But the duty of the land L.A.A. 1639 of 2008 4 acquisition court is to determine the correct market value of the acquired property. While discharging that duty it is not the satisfaction of the claimant that has to be taken into account. We feel on our evaluation of the entire evidence on record that the correct market value of the property at the relevant time will be Rs.2500/- per cent. Accordingly, allowing the appeal to that extent, we refix the market value to Rs.2500/- per cent. The appeal is allowed to that extent. The appellant will be eligible for enhanced compensation on the basis of such refixation of the market value. It is needless to mention that the claimant will be eligible for all statutory benefits admissible to him under secs.23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the circumstances, the parties will suffer their costs throughout. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-