IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 474 of 2009() ------------------------------------- LAR.159/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ----------------------------------- SHAJU, S/O.VARGHESE, KOOTTALA, VALLUVALLY, KONAMMAVU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE, SMT.SHUBHA ABRAHAM. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA), NH NO.3, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM-682 019. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO.525 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- LAA.NOs. 474,525,536,537,538,563,675,1296,1297,1298, 1299,1300,1301,1322,1333,1384,1385,1393,1452,1461, 1495 of 2009 and 4,121,707,713,796 & 801 of 2010. --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. All these appeals are preferred by the claimants. Their lands in Kottuvally Village were acquired by the Government for the purpose of widening of National Highway -17 from Varapuzha to Cheriappilly. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 23.8.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer included the lands acquired for this purpose in various categories. These appeals pertain acquisition of lands involved in categories 2 and 3. The properties included in category 1 by the Land Acquisition Officer were situated in Koonammavu Junction. The properties included in category 2 were situated at Kavilnada and Kochal Junction. The property included in category 3 were situated in between categories 1 and 2. We are concerned only the properties in categories 2 and 3. For properties in categories 2 and 3 the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.1,03,031/- per Are. For properties in category 3 the awarding officer awarded a lesser value on the basis that the ratio between properties in categories 2 and 3 is 85:75 (in fact the awarding officer LAA. 474/2009 & conn. Cases. 2 took the ratio of 100:85:70 between the values of properties in categories 1, 2 and 3. For the properties in category 3 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded at the rate of Rs.85,576/- corresponding to Rs.35,442/- per cent. Before the Reference Court the parties adduced evidence. In fact the references relating to these appeals were decided by the learned Subordinate Judge by three separate common judgments and by another judgment in one LAR case. Various documents were relied on by the claimants. Some of which were post notification documents. Respondents also produced documents which were mostly the acquisition files pertaining to the respective cases. Claimants relied on Commission report which was submitted on the basis of inspection conducted with notice to the Government. The Advocate Commissioner in his report had made a comparison of acquired property and the property relied on by the parties. The Commissioner had recommended for an award of higher value. There was oral evidence also on the side of the claimants. The learned Subordinate Judge on appreciating the evidence which came on record came to the conclusion that the document which was most apposite to be taken into consideration is Ext.A4 document No.934/2002 of the Sub Registry, Alangad. Taking the view that Ext.A4 revealed a fancy price what the learned Judge did was to make a deduction of 30% of LAA. 474/2009 & conn. Cases. 3 the value mentioned in Ext.A4 and making some addition for the passage of time. The learned Judge refixed the value of land in category 2 at Rs.1,78,304/- per Are. Thus awarding an enhancement of 73% in respect of the properties in category 2. Similarly the value of properties in category 3 were refixed at Rs.1,44,500/-. Thus awarding an enhancement of 65% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In one of the cases the learned Subordinate Judge refixed the value of property included in category 2 at Rs.1,68,577/- only per Are. 2. In these appeals the claimants have raised various grounds complaining that the enhancement granted by the court below is quite inadequate, that the appreciation of the evidence of the court below is highly improper, that the correct market value was not arrived at, that on proper appreciation of evidence there is justification for considerable enhancement. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri.Philip T.Varghese addressed arguments very strenuously on all the grounds raised in these appeals. According to him, the market value will have to be fixed at much higher rate than what was fixed by the Reference Court. All his submissions were resisted by Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, learned Government Pleader. According to her it is the Government who should be aggrieved by the refixation of market LAA. 474/2009 & conn. Cases. 4 value done by the learned Subordinate Judge. There was no justification for granting this much of enhancement. 3. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We have gone through the various items of evidence. In fact on a thorough appraisal of the evidence, we feel it was not the correct ratio fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values of properties in categories 1,2 and 3. We are of the view that the ratio fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values of properties in categories 2 and 3 at 85:75 was not correct. In fact there was no justification for keeping so much of disparity between the values of those properties. 4. Now we come to the question as to the correctness of the market value fixed. In the instant case there was oral and documentary evidence on the part of the claimants. Ext.A4 is the document which was relied on mostly by the claimants and also by the learned Subordinate Judge. Learned Subordinate Judge relied on Ext.A4 deducting 30% of the value mentioned in Ext.A4 and by giving additions for passage of time. According to us on a better assessment of the market value based on the entirety of the evidence available on record including the market value of land included in category 2 can be refixed at Rs.1,86,000/- per Are. Similarly it is the market value of LAA. 474/2009 & conn. Cases. 5 the lands which are included by the awarding officer in category 3 can be refixed at Rs.162,000/- per Are. Allowing all the appeals preferred by the claimants we refix the market value of the land included in category 2 at Rs.1,86,000/- per Are and the value of land included in category 3 at Rs.162,000/- per Are. This we do in modification of the award of the learned Subordinate Judge. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation admissible under section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE ,JUDGE pmn/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE LAA. 474/2009 & conn. Cases. 6