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 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 650 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.41/2000 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- PARAYIL THNGAT UMMER HAJI, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, CHERUKAVU AMSOM, CHEVAYUR DESOM, NOW RESIDING AT SIYAMKANDAM, PULIKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, AIR CARGO COMPLEX, KARIPUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, ALONG WITH LAA.1658/2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` L.A.A. Nos. 650 and 1658 of 2007 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimants are the appellants. In these appeals, they challenge the judgments of the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Manjeri in LAR Nos.41/2000 and 43/2000. L.A.A.No.650/07 pertains to the judgment and decree in LAR No.41/2000. In fact, it was relying on the judgment and decree in LAR No.41/2000 that the reference court passed the award in LAR No.43/2000 which is under challenge in LAA No.1658/07. 2. The acquisition was of land in Chevayur village. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 07-02-1998. The purpose of the acquisition was construction of Air Cargo Complex at Calicut Airport. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.60,971/- per cent. The evidence in LAR No.41/2000, which was decided by the learned Sub Judge along with LAR No.42/2000, another case pertaining to the same LAA.650&1658/07 : 2 : acquisition, consisted of oral evidence of AWs 1 and 2, RW1 and CW1, Advocate who had submitted Ext.C1 Commission report. The documentary evidence on the side of the claimants consisted of Exts.A1 to A3. The documentary evidence on the side of the respondents consisted of Exts.B1 to B6. Ext.A1 was copy of the registered sale agreement executed by the claimant in LAR No.41/2000 in favour of one Sainudeen Haji, revealing a very high value for the property under acquisition. The respondents had raised a contention that Ext.A1 is a piece of artificial evidence brought into existence by the claimants for claiming a higher land value in the land acquisition proceedings. Ext.A1 was eschewed by the learned Sub Judge from consideration and in our opinion rightly so. Ext.A2 was a deed of purchase of a property having an extent of 4 cents by BPL Mobile Company, Ext.A2 revealed a centage value of Rs.1 lakh. The learned Sub Judge excluded Ext.A2 also from consideration on the reason that the property covered by Ext.A2 was purchased by BPL Mobile Company for the purpose of erecting a mobile tower and that the purchase of company who were keen on erecting the tower became inclined to LAA.650&1658/07 : 3 : pay a fancy price. Having considered the circumstances attending on Ext.A2, we are of the view that the appreciation of Ext.A2 by the learned Sub Judge was proper and that the court below was justified in excluding Ext.A2 from consideration. The reference court did not place reliance on Ext.A3 either. Ext.A3 was a document in which the vendee was none other than the claimant in LAR No.41/2000. Ext.A3 revealed a centage value of Rs.41,000/-. The learned Sub Judge rejected Ext.A3 on the reason that Ext.A3 property was purchased in anticipation of land acquisition proceedings and therefore it is possible that a higher value than what was actually paid was shown in the document for the purpose of getting higher land value in the prospective land acquisition proceedings. Ultimately what the learned Sub Judge did was to rely on the basis document itself and the Commissioner’s report. It was to the effect that the property had locationally advantages and was situated near to important institutions and establishments. The proximity of the property to the Airport was also noticed by the learned Sub Judge who re- fixed the land value at Rs.30,000/- per cent. In this appeal, LAA.650&1658/07 : 4 : several grounds have been raised, assailing the judgment of the reference court. It is contended that the court below was not justified in rejecting Ext.A1 to A3. It was requested that market value of the properties be fixed relying on Ext.A2, making suitable deductions at Rs.65,000/- per cent. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.P.N.Sumangala, learned Government Pleader. Sri.Aravindakshan Pillai addressed very extensive arguments on the basis of various grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal. According to him, the court below was not justified in rejecting Ext.A2 altogether. There was no legal evidence on the basis of which it could be held that the price shown in Ext.A2 is a fancy price. Learned counsel submitted that deductions can be made for the smallness of the plot covered by Ext.A2 and the market value may be re-fixed at least at Rs.50,000/- per cent. 4. All the submissions of Mr.Aravindakshan Pillai were forcibly resisted by Smt.P.N.Sumangala, learned Government Pleader, who supported the judgment of the learned Sub Judge on LAA.650&1658/07 : 5 : the various reasons stated therein. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the impugned judgments. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence. As already indicated, we are of the view that the court below was justified in not placing reliance on Ext.A1 and A3. According to us, the court below cannot be blamed for not having placed reliance on Ext.A2 either. At the same time, we feel that the learned Sub Judge was a little miserly when it came to fixing the market value. Ultimately it is on the basis of the basis document and Ext.C1 Commission report and the testimony of CW1 that the court below re-fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per cent. On a better appreciation of those items of evidence, in our view, the market value of the properties can be re-fixed at Rs.22,250/- per cent. The appeals will stand allowed re-fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.22,250/- per cent in modification of the impugned judgments. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible to them under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of LAA.650&1658/07 : 6 : this judgment. The parties are directed in the circumstances to suffer their costs throughout. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) aks