IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 1079 of 2005(D) --------------------------- LAR.82/2001 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR. ------------------------------------ THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, T.C.DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, BALUSSERY. BY ADV. SRI. C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & 1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR. ------------------------------------------------- 1. V.K.ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. KUNHAMOTTY HAJI. 2. V.K.SOUDHA, W/O. LATHEEF. (BOTH CLAIMANTS REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, V.K.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.KUNHAMOTTY HAJI, VEDAKKETTIL HOUSE, P.O.THIKKODI, KOYILANDY TALUK). 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R3 SRI.C.VATHSALAN (R1 & R2) SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO.1078/2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos.1078 & 1079 OF 2005 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The requisitioning authority, the Kerala State Electricity Board is in appeal urging that the market value refixed by the Reference Court is excessive. The property was at Meladi in Payyoli village and was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 5/8/1999 for the purpose of construction of sub station for the KSEB. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs.2941/- per cent relying on the basis document which was marked in evidence as Ext.R1. Before the Reference Court, the respondent/claimant produced Exts.A1 and A2 and examining himself as AW1. On the side of the Government and the requisitioning authority, the evidence consisted of Ext.R1 basis document and oral evidence of RW1. The report submitted by the advocate commissioner was marked as Ext.C1. The commissioner had compared the acquired properties with Ext.A2 property and reported that Ext.A2 L.A.A..Nos.1078 & 1079/2005 2 property is enjoying the direct frontage of Payyoli-Perambra PWD Road, but the acquired properties are situated at the distance of 100 meters from that PWD road and connected through a mud road. 2. The main ground, which is urged by the requisitioning authority in these appeals, is that the court below was not justified in placing reliance on Ext.A2. It was argued by Sri.C.K.Karunakaran learned standing counsel for the KSEB that Ext.A2 was in respect of a small extent of plot having 5.85 cents. According to the learned counsel, the award passed by the Reference Court is excessive. 3. Opposing the submissions of Sri.Karunakaran, learned counsel for the claimant would support the impugned judgment on the various reasons stated therein. According to the learned counsel, the properties situated practically in Payyoli town itself and the market value of the property at the relevant time was more than what is fixed by the Reference Court. The learned counsel pointed out that Ext.A2 reflected land value at the rate of Rs.41,000/- per cent and what has been awarded is only Rs.10,000/- per cent. L.A.A..Nos.1078 & 1079/2005 3 4. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar, we feel that the market value of the land refixed by the Reference Court is on the high side. There was no much of a comparison between the properties covered by Ext.A2 and the properties under acquisition. The acquired properties did not enjoy road frontage at all. Even the commissioner was reported that the distance between the main road the acquired properties is about 100 meters and that the connection is only through a mud road. Ext.A2 properties were enjoying direct road frontage. The acquired properties are large in extent unlike Ext.A2 which is a small extent of property. When inputs which are relevant to determine the market value of the lands in land acquisition cases are taken into account, we find that the market value of the land under acquisition in these cases cannot be fixed at a rate above Rs.7,000/- per cent . Hence, allowing these appeals, we refix the market value of land under Acquisition at Rs.7,000/- per cent. 5. We make it clear that the claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and section 28 of the Act on the compensation refixed under this L.A.A..Nos.1078 & 1079/2005 4 judgment. The appeals are allowed as above, however, without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk