IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 299 of 2008(D) -------------------------- LAR.11/2004 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------ 1. GANGADHARAN KIDAVU, PADIKKAL HOUSE, THUVVAKODE, KOYILANDY. 2. PADMINI AMMA, PANAKKAL, EDAKULAM. 3. KAMALA AMMA (DIED). 4. RADHAMMA, SOUPARNIKA. 5. BALAKRISHNAN KIDAVU, PRANAVAM, EDAKULAM. 6. GIRIJAMMA, SREEGIRI. 7. NALINI AMMA, EDAKULAM. 8. RAMAKRISHNAN KIDAVU, THEKKETHURAKKATTU VEEDU, EDAKULAM. 9. RADHAKRISHNAN KIDAVU, -DO-. 10. KUNHILAKSHMI AMMA, PANAKKAL, EDAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H. DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.R. SHYAM KUMAR FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... L.A.A.NO.299 OF 2008 ................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their properties situated in between Vadakara and Quilandy were acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 24.4.2011 for the purpose of widening of National Highway-17. The properties were garden lands and the L.A. Officer relying on the basic document fixed the land value of Rs.9,713/- per cent. Before the reference court, the claimants had relied on Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds. Both the sale deeds were of the year 2000 and reflected the land value of Rs.60,000/- per cent. The Advocate Commissioner recommended that on the basis of Ext.A2 a sum of Rs.45,000/- per cent can be awarded. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to accept the recommendation of the Advocate Commissioner. The learned Subordinate Judge would however answer the reference by refixing the land value at Rs.15,000/- per cent. In this appeal various grounds are raised for challenging what is described as the gross inadequacy of the market L.A.A.NO.299 OF 2008 : 2 : value which was determined by the reference court. 2. Heard the submissions of Sri.R.K. Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the appellants and also those of Sri. C.R.Shyam Kumar – learned senior Government Pleader for the Government. According to Sri. Muraleedharan, there was no reason why Exts.A1 and A2 should have been discarded. If those documents have relied on, there is justification for refixing the market value at Rs.60,000/-. Even though for smallness of the extent covered by Exts.A1 and A2 market value could have been fixed at Rs.40,000/- per cent, the counsel for the claimants submitted that in this appeal the claim is limited to Rs.25,000/- per cent on consideration of minimizing litigational costs. 3. Sri. C.R. Shyam Kumar – senior Government Pleader submitted that there is no warrant for interfering with the impugned judgment. According to him, the learned Subordinate Judge has awarded the maximum possible amount. 4. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the bar. We have made a quick reappraisal of L.A.A.NO.299 OF 2008 : 3 : evidence on record, particularly Exts.A1 and A2 but we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified completely in discarding Exts.A1 and A2. True, basic document was the relevant document but it cannot be said that Exts.A1 and A2 are completely irrelevant. We keep in mind Exts.A1 and A2 also and fix the value of land under acquisition at Rs.22,000/- per cent. The claimants are entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2),23(1A) and 28 of the L.A. Act. However, while decree is drafted and interest is provided under Section 28, the section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us in Crl.M.A.No.305/2008 for condoning the delay. The appeal is allowed, however, without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl