IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 538 of 2004(D) ------------------------------- LAR.184/1993 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION,SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND IST RESPONDENT. ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRESANNA KUMARY, D/O.CHELLAMMA AMMA, NANKKATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KADAPPA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO.388 OF 2004 & CON. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.388, 538 of 2004 & 259 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The Requisitioning Authority, the ESI Corporation is in appeal in all the above cases. The property under acquisition situated in Mynagappally village of Kollam district was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 29/05/90 for the establishment of a dispensary for ESI Corporation. The land was dry land and the land value was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at ` 3,563/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied on Exts.A1 to A5 and oral evidence of PW1. On the side of the respondents, the documents were Exts.R1 to R4. It was relying on Exts.A2 and A3 that the learned Sub Judge re- fixed the land value at ` 14,820/- per Are. 2. The argument of Smt.T.D.Rajalakshmi, the learned L. A. A. No.388/04 & con. cases -2- counsel for the appellant was that Exts.A2 and A3 were small bits of 3 cents and 1 cent only. Hence, the court was not justified in relying on the value reflected in those documents. According to Smt.Rajalakshmi placing reliance on documents pertaining to small bit of lands and that too without examining parties to those documents was not justified. 3. All the submissions of Smt.Rajalakshmi were opposed by the counsel for the claimants. According to him, the learned Sub Judge has not given the full value reflected in Exts.A2 and A3. What has been given is only 50% of the value reflected therein. 4. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. The argument of Smt.Rajalakshmi that documents pertaining to sale of small bits of land should not have been relied on is totally without merit. But we find that the learned Sub Judge has taken care not to award the same value reflected in the document. Considering the smallness L. A. A. No.388/04 & con. cases -3- of the village, 50% has been deducted. Coming to the argument of Smt.Rajalakshmi that parties to Exts.A2 and A3 were not examined, we notice Section 51(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. According to us, on the facts and circumstances which obtain in the present case, the learned Sub Judge was justified in relying on Exts.A2 and A3 even though parties to those documents were not examined. We find that what is awarded is only ` 6,000/- per cent corresponding to ` 14,820/- per Are. We are sure that considering the market value of the land in Mynagappally village at the relevant time, the rate presently fixed is not excessive. 5. All the above appeals will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/- L. A. A. No.388/04 & con. cases -4-