IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No.113 of 2005 (C) --------------------------------- LAR.2/1999 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: -------------------------------- T. V. LEELAMMA, ELAPPUNKAL, PULLAD, KOIPURAM BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY SRI.G.UDYA BHANU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH R.P.773/09 ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.113 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal is preferred by the claimant whose properties were acquired for the establishment of the Industrial Growth Centre at Kunnamthanam. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 15/06/95. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3459/- per Are. The only tangible item of evidence on the side of the claimant before the Reference Court was Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was judgment of the same court in another land acquisition case pertaining to the very same acquisition. The property in Ext.A1 had also been awarded to the same rate by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award. L. A. A. No.113 of 2005 -2- Under Ext.A1, the land value was re-fixed by the court to Rs.6175/-. The Reference Court relied on Ext.A1 and re-fixed land value of the acquired property in this case also at the rate of Rs.6175/-. 2. We have heard Sri.T.K.Koshy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.K.Babu, the Senior Government Pleader. Sri.Koshy submitted that the acquired properties in this case was superior to Ext.A1 property. AW1's evidence was to the effect that the acquired properties have frontage to the main road while Ext.A1 property did not enjoy such frontage. He also submitted that the appellant was denied sufficient opportunity to take out a commission. He very fervently prayed for an order of remand so that a commission could be taken out. When we invited the learned counsel's notice to the situation that even L. A. A. No.113 of 2005 -3- inspection of a Commissioner will not be very useful in view of the alteration of the land and establishment of the Industrial Growth Centre on the properties covered by this acquisition as well as Ext.A1, Sri.Koshy would submit that if opportunity is given the appellant can produce relevant sale documents revealing much higher value than the value given in Ext.A1. The submissions of Sri.Koshy were resisted by Sri.P.K.Babu, the Senior Government Pleader who supported the impugned judgment. According to him, Ext.A1 was relied on by the appellant and the same was accepted by the Reference Court. 3. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. According to us, no useful purpose will be served by deputing a commission at this stage. It will be very difficult for the Commissioner to identify the L. A. A. No.113 of 2005 -4- special features of Ext.A1 property as well as the acquired properties at this distance of time when both properties have already been utilised for the construction of the building for the Industrial Growth Centre. It is too late for the appellant to urge that the appellant will be able to produce documents revealing a higher land value than Ext.A1. This was a large scale acquisition and the property of the appellant as well as the property of the party in Ext.A1 was included by the Land Acquisition Officer in the same category and awarded the same value. One of the principles underlying Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act is that parity must be brought forth between the final values awarded to persons whose properties have been similarly valued by the Land Acquisition Officer for his original award. That principle cannot be lost L. A. A. No.113 of 2005 -5- sight of by us. According to us, the appellant cannot have any legitimate grievance since Ext.A1 relied on by him was accepted by the court below. 4. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/- Judgment dt.18/06/2009 in L. A. A. No.113/2005 is recalled vide judgment dated 27/08/2009 in R.P. No.773/2009 in L.A.A. No.113/2005 & L.A.A No.113/2005. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)