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 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 476 of 2004(D) -------------------------- LAR.116/1998 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------ 1. THARANHOLI DEVAKI AMMA, VENGERI, KARUVISERY, KOZHIKODE.(DIED) 2. THARANHOLI PRASANNA KUMAR, VENGERI, KARUVISERY, KOZHIKODE. 3. THARANHOLI GEETHA, VENGERI, KARUVISERY, KOZHIKODE. ADDITIONAL FOURTH APPELLANT 4. ARUL KUMAR, S/O DEVAKI AMMA THARANNOLI HOUSE, VENGERI KARUVISERY , KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H.I., KOZHIKODE. Additional fourth appellant impleaded as LR's of the first appellant vide order in I.A.No.4651/09 dated 5-3-2010 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.476 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the claimant in respect of acquisition of land in Vengeri village in Kozhikode district for the purpose of construction of Calicut bye-pass. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 13-07-1993. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 9347/- per cent relying on the basis document. The basis document was rightly rejected by the reference court. The only two documents produced on the side of the claimant for supporting their claim for enhancement was Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 was a post notification document and was rightly rejected by the reference court. Ext.A2 was a pre-notification document executed in 1992 and it revealed a land value of Rs. 20,000/- per cent. 2. We have heard Sri.P.V. Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader. Even though Sri.Kunhikrishan addressed arguments on the basis of all LAA.No.476/07 2 the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, only one of his submissions has appeal to us. He submitted that the court below did not take into account the fact that Ext.A2 document was executed about one year prior to the relevant Section 4(1) notification. For passage of time, increase should have been given on the value reflected in Ext.A1, so submitted the learned counsel. We find some merit in the above contention. The area can be treated as an urben area and the Supreme Court has in G.M.Oil & Natual Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai & Another ( 2008 SAR (civil) 894 Supreme Court) held that while pre-notification documents are taken, an addition is to be given for passage of time. The proper percentage to be adopted is between 10 to 15 percentage. We feel that on the facts of this case, the proper percentage to be adopted is 10%. Accordingly, allowing the appeal, we refix the value of the acquired property at Rs. 22,000/- ( Rupees twenty two thousand) per cent. It is needless to mention that the appellant is entitled for all statutory benefits on the total compensation which becomes admissible to him by virtue of our refixation. The appeal is allowed to the above LAA.No.476/07 3 extent. But in the circumstances parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.476/07 4