IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 291 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.137/2008 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------ MARY GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE MYALILNINNUMPAREL, KUNNAPPALLY, MULAKULAM PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) M.V.I.P. KURUPPANTHARA,KOTTAYAM 686 603. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ,MVIP DIVISION M.V.I.P, DIVISION NO.IV MOOVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 661. R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- L.A.A.No.291 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Mulakulam village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 28.1.2005 for the purpose of formation of Karikkodu Distributory canal. LAO awarded land value at Rs.3,264/- per cent relying on the basis document. Before the reference court, appellants adduced evidence consisting mainly of Exts.A1 and A2 on the side of the appellant apart from the commissioner's reports Exts.C1 and C1(a). Ext.A1 was a document dated 11.2.2000, in respect of a fairly large extent of 41 cents of land and the purchaser of Ext.A1 was the BSNL. Ext.A1 reflected a land value at Rs.28,750/- per cent. The Advocate commissioner reported that the distance between the acquired property and Ext.A1 property is 300 meters. The commissioner also reported 2 L.A.A.No.291 of 2011 that Ext.A1 property was situated 300 meters away from Peruva junction abutting the panchayat road and the report regarding the acquired property was that the property is situated very close to Kunnappally junction but situated by the side of a private road. Learned Sub Judge discarded Ext.A1 for the reason that, there was a distance of 300 meters between the Ext.A1 property and acquired property. In this appeal the main grievance of the appellant is that, Ext.A1 should not have been discarded. 2. We have heard Mr.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.T.K.Mohanan, learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel drew our attention to the various items of evidence particularly Exts.A1, A2, C1 and C1(a). Having reappreciated the evidence to which our attention has drawn, we feel that the learned Sub Judge was not justified in completely discarding Ext.A1. Even according to the learned Sub Judge, the distance between the properties was 300 meters only. We are not inclined to grant the same rate reflected in Ext.A1. Counsel requested 3 L.A.A.No.291 of 2011 that for the passage of time some addition should be made to the value reflected in Ext.A1. We accept the submissions of Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan that, Peruva junction is a much more important area than Kunnappally junction. We feel that there is every justification for relying on Ext.A1 and refixing the market value of the land at Rs.15,000/- per cent. Accordingly, allowing the appeal we refix the land value at Rs.15,000/- per cent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, on the total refixed compensation. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/