IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 LA.App..No. 1783 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.53/2000 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- ABOOBACKER, T.C.NO.49/374, NEW BUILDING, PANAVILA LANE, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1784 OF 2007 & CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos.1783,1784,1786,1729 & 1785/2007 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are the appellants in all these appeals. The properties under acquisition were situated in Manacaud village of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The acquisition was for the purpose of extension of the Government Homeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The properties were dry lands. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.73,806/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimants produced Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 reflected land value of Rs.79,047/- per cent and Ext.A2 reflected land value of Rs.77,000/- per cent. The Reference Court did not become inclined to place complete reliance either on Exts.A1 or on A2. However, on evaluating the entire evidence on record, which consisted also of oral evidence adduced by the claimants and the report submitted by the commissioner (there being no counter oral evidence on the side of the Government), the LAA.Nos.1783/2007 & others 2 Reference Court would refix the land value at Rs.1,10,705/- per Are corresponding to Rs.44,820/- per cent. 2. In these appeals various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the court below contending that there is gross inadequacy in the market value redetermined by the court below . Smt.M.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the appellants addressed us extensively on the basis of the grounds raised in the appeal. According to her, Exts.A1 and A2 ought to have been relied on and additions should have been given on the values reflected on Exts.A1 and A2 for passage of time. If that is done, there will be justification for awarding the market value at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- which is claimed in the appeals, so submitted Smt.Hemalatha. She also referred to our own recent judgment in L.A.A. No.2365/2008, which is in respect of acquisition of adjacent property for the same purpose, but pursuant to a notification exactly one year subsequently. She pointed out that the property in L.A.A. No.2365/2008 was wet land unlike the present properties which were dry lands. According to her, if the ratio maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer in that LAA is maintained, it has to be LAA.Nos.1783/2007 & others 3 found that the value of wet land is only 60% of the value of the corresponding dry lands. 3. Even though all the submissions of Smt.Hemalatha were resisted by the learned Government Pleader, she did not dispute the submission that the properties involved in L.A.A. No.2365/2008 were wet lands and that there is close proximity between those properties and the properties which are subject matter of the present appeals. She also agreed that the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under his award for wet lands was roughly 60% of the values awarded for granting dry lands. 4. We have considered the rival submissions very anxiously. We keep in mind our own judgment in L.A.A. No.2365/2008 as well as the reasons on the basis of which we refixed the market value of the land involved in that case at Rs.85,000/- per cent. We also notice that the land involved in that case was wet land (but with direct frontage of the main road) unlike the present lands which are dry lands. Keeping all the relevant aspects into account particularly the market value of the land in the locality, as discernible from Exts.A1 & A2, and our decision in LAA.Nos.1783/2007 & others 4 L.A.A.2365/2010, we are of the view that the market value of the land under acquisition in these appeals should be Rs.93,000/- per cent. Accordingly, allowing the appeals, we modify the impugned common judgment and decree and refix the value of lands under acquisition at Rs.2,29,800/- per Are which corresponds to Rs.93,000/- per cent. 5. The appeals are allowed as above. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under sections 23(2) 23(1A) and 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, we notice that while awarding additional amount under Section 23 (1A), the learned Subordinate Judge committed the mistake of awarding additional amount from the date of Section 4(1) notification till the date of possession ignoring that the date of award was earlier. Hence, we clarify that the appellants will be eligible for additional amount under Section 23 (1A) only from 2/10/1997 to 8/10/1999. Similar mistake has been committed by the learned Subordinate Judge while awarding interest under Section 28 of the Act. It is clarified that parties will be eligible for interest under Section 28 from 23/11/1999. LAA.Nos.1783/2007 & others 5 The appeals are allowed subject to the above clarifications. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk