IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 324 of 2011(D) ------------------------------ LAR.7/2009 of SUB COURT, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT IN LAR NO.7/09 ----------------------------------------------- MR.SAJITHA ZULPHIKAR,W/O.ZULPHIKAR, VAIRAVANVILAKATHU VEEDU,KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN LAR NO.7/09 -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,TECHNO PARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAM KUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011 ALONG WITH LAA NO.359 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.324 & 359 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose The appellants, husbands and wife are aggrieved by the re-fixation of the value of their lands under acquisition by the Reference Court. In fact the Land Acquisition Officer included properties belonging to the husband itself in different categories. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned award however noticed the illegality and has found that the entire properties belonging to the husband and wife were being enjoyed as a common holding and was eligible to be included in category No.1 itself. For properties in category No.1 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 1,80,900/- per Are. The acquisition of land pursuant to Section 4(1) notification was published on 05/12/06. Before the Reference Court, the appellants relied on Exts.A1 to A6. Barring Exts.A1 and A2 the other L. A. A. Nos.324 & 359 of 2011 -2- documents were post notification documents. The post notification documents were discarded on that reason, in our view, rightly by the learned Subordinate Judge. Two pre- notification documents Exts.A1 and A2 reflected land value of ` 2,47,252/- and ` 2,77,798/- per Are respectively. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place any reliance on these two documents. 2. Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the appellants requested that the awards be interfered and the LAR cases be remanded to the Sub Court so that the Sub Court can pass a revised award. 3. Sri.Shyamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the appellants cannot have a genuine complaint that they were deprived of sufficient opportunity to produce documents by the Sub Court. Whatever further documents have been produced the maximum that can be done is to have a re-appraisal of the evidence. L. A. A. Nos.324 & 359 of 2011 -3- 4. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have re-appraised the evidence. According to us, Exts.A1 and A2 should not have been discarded by the learned Subordinate Judge. True Exts.A1 and A2 pertain to small extent of properties while the properties under acquisition being a large plot (when treated as one holding), but then in our opinion the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in completely discarding Exts.A1 and A2 for the above reasons. The learned Sub Judge could have relied on those documents after making appropriate cuts on the value reflected in Exts.A1 and A2. We take into account the values reflected in Exts.A1 and A2. We make a cut of 10% for the largeness of the extent of properties involved in this case. We notice the passage of time also between the relevant Section 4(1) notifications in these cases and the days of Exts.A1 and A2. Keeping all relevant inputs in mind, we re-fix the market value of the lands under acquisition uniformly at the rate of ` 2,45,000/- per Are. L. A. A. Nos.324 & 359 of 2011 -4- 5. The appeals are allowed to the above extent only. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Appellants will be entitled for proportionate costs also. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE