IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1216 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.98/2003 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- JOSEPH KORATH, S/O.JOSEPH, KOKKADAMALIL, MATTAKUZHIKKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) SRI.SHAJI SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECTS), KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, AMBALAMUGAL. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. LAA NO. 1779 OF 2007 & 359/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A. 1216 & 1779 OF 2007 and LAA 359 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 29, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. These are all appeals preferred by the claimants who are not satisfied by the enhancement granted by the reference court. The acquisition was for the purpose of the Cochin Refineries. The properties are in Thiruvaniyoor village. The relevant sec.4(1) notification was published on 4.11.2000. The lands were included in category III i.e. dry land having direct frontage of cartable road and access to pucca roads. For these properties the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.31900/- per are. 2. The evidence before the reference court consisted on Exts.A1 to A9, R1 To R15, C1 and C1(a) and Exts.X1 to X3(a). The oral evidence on the side of the claimant consisted of testimonies of Aws.1 and 2 while on the side of the respondents L.A.A. 1216 & 1779 OF 2007 AND LAA 359 OF 2008 2 the evidence consisted of the testimonies of Rws.1 and 2. The learned Subordinate Judge on evaluating the evidence would refix the value of the lands at Rs.42000/- per Are, thus granting an enhancement of 30 to 32% over what was awarded by the land acquisition officer. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri B. Premnath, learned counsel for the appellants, and of Smt.Thushara James, learned counsel for the Cochin Refineries. We have heard the submissions of Sr. Government Pleader Sri Basant Balaji and the Government Pleader Sri Bijoy Chandran. We have gone through the evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would draw our attention to the various items of evidence. He would give thrust in his submissions on Ext.X3 and also to documents Exts.A2 and A5. He submitted that Exts.X3 and Ex(a) are documents in respect of similar properties in the same village executed between owners of the properties and the Hindusthan Organic Chemicals Ltd. He submitted that under Ext.X3 the owners have been paid additional amounts. The learned Subordinate Judge did not take into consideration the additional amounts paid to the parties under Ext.X3. The counsel submitted that Exts.A2 and L.A.A. 1216 & 1779 OF 2007 AND LAA 359 OF 2008 3 A5 reveal a land value of more than Rs.60,000/- per are. According to him the learned Subordinate Judge did not even discuss those documents. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants were resisted by Smt.Thushara James. She would support the impugned judgments on the various reasons stated therein. 5. In reply the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that written argument notes were given to the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Subordinate Judge did not place any reliance on Exts.A2 and A5. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the argument notes. We find that the claimants did not place any specific reliance on Exts.A2 and A5 in the arguments notes they submitted. Interestingly it is seen from the argument notes that the claimants limited their claim for enhancement to Rs.46250/- per Are. Having given a written argument notes in which no reliance was placed on Exts.A2 and A5, the appellants are not entitled to blame the learned Subordinate Judge for not having placed reliance on Exts.A2 and A5. We also find that Exts.A2 and A5 were in respect of properties in Puthencruz village and not in Thiruvaniyoor village L.A.A. 1216 & 1779 OF 2007 AND LAA 359 OF 2008 4 where the acquired properties are situated. The complaint of the appellants that Ext.X3 was not relied on also cannot be accepted because we find that Ext.X3 is the result of a bipartite negotiation between the parties who obviously complained that the parties whose properties were acquired for the Hindusthan Organic Chemicals Ltd., under the land acquisition proceedings were given solatium and other statutory benefits over and above the market value. Ext.X3 cannot be said to be a normal sale. The learned Subordinate Judge has under the impugned judgment upheld the claims of the appellants as limited by them in the argument notes to a considerable extent. We do not find any warrant for interference. The appeals will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-