IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 264 of 2000(A) -------------------------- LAR.54/1988 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: -------------- K.T. ALBERT, KUNNUKKASSERY, PERUMANOOR, COCHIN – 15. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.K.S.DILIP RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. THE SECRETARY, REPRESENTED BY THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI -20. R1 BY SR.GOVT. PEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.264 of 2000 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This is an appeal by the claimant. 2. Heard Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.S.B.Premachandra Prabhu, learned Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority. 3. The property under acquisition was in Ernakulam village and the acquisition was for the implementation of the Elamkulam West Extension Scheme for the Greater Cochin Development Authority. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 21/11/1978. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.485/- per Are. L. A. A. No.264 of 2000 -2- Before the Reference Court, the appellant limited his claim to Rs.15,000/- per cent. Reference Court in the first instance re-fixed the land value to Rs.15,000/- per cent. L.A.A.336/91 was preferred by the Government and this Court considering that appeal set aside the judgment of the Reference Court and remanded the matter for fresh decision. The one reason for passing the order of remand was that Ext.A2 document which was relied on by the Reference Court had not been properly proved. After remand, the court below examined AW4 and AW5. AW4 who prepared Ext.A2 document on behalf of the vendee company deposed that the document recorded a genuine transaction. The court below, however, did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A2. As rightly noticed by the court below, Ext.A2 was not a L. A. A. No.264 of 2000 -3- comparable property. Ext.A2 was a property having direct frontage of M.G. Road. What the court below did was to rely on Ext.A1 award of the court in O.P. (Electricity) No.124/1972. In that O.P. the value of an adjacent property was found to be Rs.8,000/- per cent. The court below, accordingly, awarded land value at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per cent. 4. In this appeal, though several grounds were raised and the learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments on all the grounds, the only ground which appeal to us is the ground that even on the basis of Ext.A1, the court should have granted considerable enhancement taking into account the passage of six years' time between the date of tree cutting in Ext.A1 and the date of Section 4(1) notification in the present case. We are unable to L. A. A. No.264 of 2000 -4- discern as to what exactly was the date of tree cutting in Ext.A1. But one thing is clear, the tree cutting was prior to 1972 since the O.P itself is filed in 1972. The properties were situated very near to the Cochin Shipyard and in our opinion, the period between 1972 and 1978 was a period when land values in that area was on the increase only. The property ought to be treated being situated in the Ernakulam area of the Cochin Corporation as an urban area. According to us, there is a justification for granting at least 50% increase for the passage of six years time between 1972 and 1978. Accordingly, relying on Ext.A1 itself, we re-fix land value of the acquired properties in these cases at Rs.12,000/- per cent. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. 5. It was submitted by Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, L. A. A. No.264 of 2000 -5- learned counsel for the appellant that the awarding officer awarded only a nominal value of Rs.1 for a portion of the acquired property extending to 0.69 Ares (1.725 cents) stating the reason that the said portion is lying as a “thodu”. Though the Reference Court found that the Land Acquisition Officer's treatment of that portion as “thodu” is not justified and became pleased to award enhancement of compensation for that portion also, that court did not specifically award the original compensation for which also that portion was eligible. We find considerable force in the above submission and clarify that the appellant will be entitled for full re-fixed value at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent for the entire acquired property extending to 5.33 Ares. This means that for the 0.69 Ares treated by the Land Acquisition Officer L. A. A. No.264 of 2000 -6- as “thodu” also the appellant will be entitled for full land value at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent. 6. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhancement to which he becomes eligible by virtue of the re-fixation of land value done under this judgment. 7. This appeal is allowed as above. The parties to suffer their costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-