IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 464 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.84/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- JAYASREE, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, KAILAS (VILAYIL) VEEDU, MEENATHU CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 554 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos.464 & 554 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. These appeals by the State pertains to acquisition of land in Sakthikulangara village for the purpose of construction of National High Way Bye pass. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 7/6/2002. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.58,395/- per Are. Under the impugned judgment, the Reference Court relied on Ext.A1 and refixed the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.10,13,300/- per Are. 2. We have heard Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned Government Pleader for the respondent and Sri..B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. It is seen that it is relying on Ext.A1 that the learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced the value of the land under acquisition. Ext.A1 is in respect of a shop room and 15 sq. meters of land. The learned Subordinate Judge has taken the value of land shown in Ext.A1 and made LAA.No.464 & 554/2010 2 additions at the rate of 15% per year relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samithi Sanaswan v. Bipin Kumar and another (2004 2 SCC 283) and has arrived at the market value of the land at Rs.10,13,300/- per Are. 3. Even though Sri.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant made every endeavour to support the impugned judgment, we are of the view that it is not at all safe to have relied on Ext.A1. As for the judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge, we notice subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008 SAR (Civil) 894) and find that it is now held that giving additions at 15% per year irrespective of the area where the property in question is situated is not proper. At any rate, we feel that Ext.A1 was not a reliable document. Under the above circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the judgment and decree and remand the matter back to the Reference Court. 4. The result of the above discussion is therefore as follows; The common judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. L.A.R. Nos.84/2006 & 83/2006 are remanded to the LAA.No.464 & 554/2010 3 Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Kollam. That Court is directed to afford opportunity to the respondent/claimant to adduce whatever further evidence they want to . That court will pass revised judgment on the basis of the evidence already on record (excluding Ext.A1) and any other further evidence which the parties come to adduce. However, there will be a direction that if the appellant becomes eligible for enhanced land value under the revised judgment, such enhanced land value will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period from 24/9/2009 till 3/3/2011. The parties will enter appearance on 31/3/2011. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk