IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1360 of 2005() -------------------------- LAR.50/2002 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT. ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS. ------------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O.KURIAKOSE, PAZHAYIDATHU, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, MUTTOM. 2. VALSAMMA, W/O.JOSEPH, PAZHAYIDATHU, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, MUTTOM. ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI FOR R1 & R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1360 of 2005 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the Government pertain to acquisition of land in Muttom Village of Thodupuzha Taluk for the purpose of LIC Aided Rural Water Supply Scheme. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 28/2/2000. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,378/- per cent. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to A6, AW1 to AW4 and the commissioner's report Ext.C1. There was absolutely no counter evidence adduced by the State. Ext.A1 properties are situated in Muttom itself, a semi urban area, and it is not in dispute that the land value in the area had been on the increase during the relevant time at a minimum rate of 7.5% per year. Taking into account the increase in the land value in the area due to passage of time, the market value reflected in Exts.A1, A2 and A3 could be rightly fixed at Rs.13,500/-, 38,937/- and Rs.13,359/- respectively on the date L.A.A..No.1360/2005 2 of the relevant section 4(1) notification. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place any reliance on Exts.A2 and A3 on the reason that Ext.A2 and A3 was a document executed in favour of a Society. We are at a loss to understand why the learned subordinate Judge ignored Exts.A2 and A3 documents on the reason that they are executed in favour of the Society. According to us, Exts.A2 and A3 also had some relevance in determining the correct market value of the property. Ext.A1 is a document executed in favour of the District Panchayat. Though the learned Subordinate Judge observed in the beginning, that the said document cannot also taken into account, ultimately that document itself was taken into account to arrive at the market value of the properties as Rs.12,155/- per cent. 2. We feel that the correct market value of the properties at the relevant time will be almost the average of the values revealed in Exts.A1, A2 and A3. The amounts comes to about Rs.22,000/-. At the same time, we find some force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the acquired L.A.A..No.1360/2005 3 property is having some minus factors. Taking into account those minus factors, we fix the market value of the acquired property at the relevant time as Rs.20,000/- per cent. 3. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal preferred by the Government will stand dismissed. Cross objection preferred by the claimants will stand allowed to the extent of refixing the market value of the acquired property at Rs.20,000/- per cent. It is needless to mention that the respondents claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation to which they become eligible on account of re-fixation as above. 4. Sri.Johnson Manayani, learned counsel for the cross objector submits that the cross objector's daughter is to be married off and that the marriage is being put off on account of shortage of funds. We accept the above submission and direct the Government to facilitate payment of the enhanced compensation redetermined under this judgment at the earliest. It is ordered that in the circumstances of this case, the L.A.A..No.1360/2005 4 parties will suffer their costs both in the appeal as well as in the cross objection. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk