IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 2379 of 2008(D) --------------------------- LAR.327/2004 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKPAPPNA RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT: --------------- SHYAMALA KUMARI AMMA SREE BHAVAN, AZHAKULAM, VIZHINJAM. ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN FOR R1 SMT.LIGEY ANTONY FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.2379 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Thiruvananthapuram Sub Court in L.A.R. No. 327/2004. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Venganoor Village for the purpose widening of road from Kovalam Mukkola Reach 1 pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 25/3/2002. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.16407/- per Are including the acquired property in category-E. i.e. properties without road frontage. But, the reference court under the impugned judgment, would upgrade the property under acquisition to category-D. Relying on the earlier judgments and evidence which came on record, the reference court refixed the value of the land at Rs.60,000/- per Are. The ground, which is prominently raised in this memorandum of appeal, is that the upgradation of the category allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong. 2. We have heard the submissions of Smt.Latha L.A.A..No.2379/2008 2 T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader for the appellant and those of Smt.Ligey Antony, learned counsel for the respondent claimant. 3. The Government Pleader would submit that the only material, on the basis of which the learned Subordinate Judge upgraded the category of the land under acquisition, was the oral evidence of AW1. The learned counsel submitted that no commission was taken out and there was no report on the basis of which it could be said that the acquired properties enjoyed the frontage of the Panchayat road by name Chirayil road. 4. Smt. Ligey Antony would submit that interference with the impugned judgment will result in dismissal of L.A.A. Nos.1723 & 1733/2008 preferred by the claimants in other cases which were decided by the learned Subordinate Judge along with the present LAR. The ground in those appeals is that the value given to the claimant in this case should be given to them also. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader, it is relying on the oral testimony of AW1 and on what is described by the learned Subordinate Judge as perusal of records, that the learned L.A.A..No.2379/2008 3 Subordinate Judge concluded that the property under acquisition was fit to be included in category-D i.e. properties having frontage of Panchayat road by name Chirayil Road. We have gone through the records. Mahazar reveals that the properties under acquisition did not enjoy the frontage of Chirayil road at all. If that be so, the only evidence available was the self serving oral evidence of AW1. Significantly, no commission report was obtained by the claimant to support the contention that the properties enjoy the frontage of Chirayil road. 6. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the upgradation of the category allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge was improper. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and refix the value of the properties under acquisition at Rs.42,000/- per Are, the value uniformly adopted by the court for properties in category E. It is needless to mention that the appellant claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of our refixation of the land value of the acquired properties at at the L.A.A..No.2379/2008 4 rate of Rs.42,000/- per Are under this judgment. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk