IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 1863 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.4/2002 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------ PUNNEN GEORGE, MANGALATH HOUSE, THODUPUZA PRESENTLY SETTLED AT HORIZON VIEW, BHOSLE MARG, MUMBAI-21-REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PUNNEN JACOB @ PUNNOOSE JACOB RESIDING AT MANGALAM HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. (DIED) ADDL.R2. NALINI PUNNOSE, WIFE OF LATE PUNNON GEORGE NOW RESIDING AT NO.103, “SHALOM”10 TH CORSS, 1 STAGE :INDIRANGAR, BANGALORE – 50038. (IMPLEADED AS LR'S OF R1 VIDE ORDER DATED 16/1/2009 IN IA 94/2008) ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1863 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the Government pertains to award of enhanced compensation by the reference court viz. Subordinate Judge's Court, Thodupuzha in a case pertaining to acquisition of land in Thodupuzha Village for the construction of Kothaikunnu Bye-pass road. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 1/6/1999. The awarding officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.6250/- per cent and the reference court, on evaluating the entire evidence which came on record particularly Ext.A9 judgment in L.A.R. No.88/2003, would refix the land value at Rs.75035/- per cent. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri.Raju K.Mathews, learned counsel for the respondent claimant. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. We feel that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge in relying on Ext.A9 judgment in L.A.R. No.88/2003 series was correct. The L.A.A..No.1863/2008 2 finding of the learned Judge that the property covered by Ext.A9 was comparable to the acquired property in this case is founded on evidence including Ext.C1 and C3 reports submitted by the advocate commissioners. The learned Judge noticed that Ext.A9 was pursuant to section 4(1) notification dated 18/2/2000 and the present acquisition is pursuant to section 4 (1) notification dated 1/6/1999. As for passage of time between two notifications, what the learned Judge did was to deduct 15% from the value fixed under Ext.A9. It is brought to our notice that by common judgment in L.A.A. 121/2008 series, a Division Bench of this court, to which one of us (myself) was party, modified Ext.A9 judgment and refixed the market value of the property covered by Ext.A9 at Rs.82,500/- per cent. Sri.Raju K.Mathews, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in the above common judgment, this court has found that ideal percentage to be added for passage of time in respect of the properties in Thodupuzha village is 7.5%. He further submitted that in this case also there is no clear evidence available as to what was the exact percentage of increase in the land value during the relevant period per year. He , therefore, requested L.A.A..No.1863/2008 3 that this court may not deduct more than 7.5% p.a. from the value of Ext.A9 property refixed under the common judgment in L.A.R. No.121/2008 series. 3. We feel that the learned counsel Sri.Raju K.Mathews is justified in making the above request since other items of evidence available in this case, particularly Ext.A9, will also justify awarding the value of Rs.76312.05 ( 92.5 % of 82,500). Under the impugned judgment, the market value fixed by the reference court is Rs.75,033/- per Are. Even though on refixation on the basis of Ext.A9 judgment as modified by the common judgment in L.A.R. No.121/2008 series or on the basis of Ext.A1, the market value of the acquired property will have to be refixed at Rs.76312.05 in the absence of any appeal or cross objection by the claimant. We are not inclined to make such refixation. We are inclined only to dismiss this appeal. The appeal, accordingly, will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk