IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 201 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.66/2001 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- SHERLY, W/O.ALENGADAN ANTONY, CHOORAKKATTUKARA, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) GENERAL, THRISSUR. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR. SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER MS.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, ALONG WITH LAA.205 OF 2004 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos. 201, 205, 389 and 423 of 2004 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The claimants are the appellants in all these cases. Their lands in Thangaloor village of Trichur district were acquired for the purposes of the 2nd respondent District Industries Centre pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 29.3.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,265/- per cent corresponding to Rs.3,125/- per Are. Before the reference court, the claimants produced Ext.A1 to A8(b), oral evidence of AW1 and 2 and apart from relying on Ext.X1 commission report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner on the basis of local inspection. From the respondents' side RW1 was the solitary witness. Learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place reliance on any of the documents produced. According to the learned Sub Judge, the basis document was the ideal document in the case and therefore there is no warrant for any enhancement. But it appears to us that L.A.A.201,205,389 & 423/04 2 importance of property and locational advantages as reported in Ext.X1 were not kept in mind by the learned Subordinate Judge. According to us, some reliance should be placed on Ext.X1. If that is done, there is justification for granting some enhancement to the appellants. Eventhough we are in a position to approve the action of the Subordinate Judge in not having placed reliance on the various documents relied on by the claimants to support their claim for enhancement, we notice that the basis document is executed two years prior to Section 4(1) notification. Some addition necessarily has to be given for passage of time. Thus re-appreciating entire evidence on record, particularly Ex.X1 report, we re-fix land value under acquisition at Rs.1,600/- per cent corresponding to Rs.3,955/- per Are. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. It is needless to mention that the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb