IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/24TH KARTHIKA, 1935 LA.App..No. 1561 of 2009 ( ) ----------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR.NO. 72/2004 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 21-12-2006) --------------------------- APPELLANT/(B CLAIMANT): -------------------------------------------------- ANEESH, KAVANAL VEEDU, (CHANDRA VILASAM), PANNIKUZHY P.O., PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.T.P.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/(RESPONDENTS AND A CLAIMANT): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECTS), KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, AMBALAMUGAL. 3. KURIAN VARGHESE, MATTATHIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANADU SOUTH P.O., EZHAKKARANADU. R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2013,ALONG WITH R.P.NO.902/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos. 248 of 2008,196 & 1561 of 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their lands situated in Thiruvaniyoor village of Ernakulam District were acquired for the purpose of the expansion of Cochin Refineries, the second respondent. The lands were dry lands with road access. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 4/11/2010. The Land Acquisition Officer, relying on the basis documents, awarded land value at the rate of Rs.31,900/- per Are as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, which tried a number of cases including the present ones pertaining to the same acquisition jointly, the evidence on the side of the claimants consisted of Exts.A1 to A13 oral evidence of AWs 1 to 4, R1 to R22 and C1 to C3(a). Significantly, there was no counter oral evidence on the side of the Government or the requisitioning authority. It was mainly on Exts.A5 & A11 that the claimants relied on to support their L.A.A.Nos.248/2008 & others 2 case for enhancement. Ext.A5 was a pre-notification document executed on 31/8/1998 reflecting land value of Rs. 80,612/- per Are. Ext.A5 was in respect of property in Puthencruz village. Ext.A11 again a pre notification document executed in 1998 was in respect of the property in the Thiruvaniyoor village reflecting a land value of Rs.47,058/-. The court below did not rely on Ext.A5 and A11 and for that matter on any other document produced by the claimants on the reason that those documents were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award and rejected by him. Ultimately what the court below did was to rely on Ext.A13 court award in certain connected matters and refix value of the land under acqustiion at Rs.42,000/- per Are, thus awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.10,100/- per Are. 2. In these appeals, the claimants have raised the various grounds and Sri.T.A.Shaji, learned counsel for the appellants addressed us on the basis of those grounds. 3. All the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants were forcefully resisted by Smt.Thusara James, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader. L.A.A.Nos.248/2008 & others 3 4. Having considered the submissions and having made quick reappraisal of the entire evidence on record, we feel that the court below was not justified in discarding Ext.A11 from consideration. The Court below appears to have been under the impression that Ext.A11, having been considered and rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, was not worthy of consideration by the court. The learned Subordinate Judge ought to have remembered that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is just an offer and since the claimants had not accepted that offer, the duty of determining the correct compensation on the basis of the evidence that comes before the court, was that of the court. The court could have therefore considered Ext.A11 notwithstanding its rejection by the Land Acquisition Officer. Ext.A11 of course is proved by examining the parties themselves. But, then there was no counter evidence at all to the oral evidence of the claimants that Ext.A11 was a relevant document and that the claimants should have been awarded at least the value shown in Ext.A11. 5. Having taken into account the entirety of the evidence on record, we feel that Ext.A11 can be relied on and the market L.A.A.Nos.248/2008 & others 4 value of the land under acquisition can be refixed at Rs.47,000/- per Are. Accordingly, in modification of the impugned judgment, we refix the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.47,000/- per Are, thus awarding Rs.5000/- per are more than what is awarded by the Court below. It is needless to mention that the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2) 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk The judgment in L.A.A. No.196/2009 dated 18/05/2010 is recalled vide order dated 29/03/2011 in R.P. 1017/2010 in L.A.A. No.196/2009. Sd/-. Register(Judicial)