IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 613 of 2010(C) -------------------------- LAR.61/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT, N. PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- PAULOSE,S/O.KUNJU VARKEY,THANDAKAN, AKAPARAMBU. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. KOCHI INTERNTIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GOPAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 613 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan, J. The claimant is in appeal. A total extent of 33.50 Ares of land was acquired from his possession by the International Airport Society. Notification under Section 4 (1) was published on 8-7-1994. Out of the total extent, an extent of 26.50 Ares was treated as 'myal' and the balance 7 Ares was treated as wet land. On evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, the reference court re- fixed the land value in respect of part of 'myal' land mentioned above at Rs.5075/- per Are and for the remaining land at Rs.4276/- per Are. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though, the property was described as 'nilom' or wet LAA.613/10 -2- land in the records/documents, actually the property was a dry land, reclaimed several years back. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied upon Ext.A7, which was the sale deed executed by the claimant in respect of 5 cents of land sold from out of the total property which was originally held by him. It is seen that all the four boundaries of the property covered by Ext. A7 are also described as 'nilom'. Sri. Chacko, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though in Ext.A7 the property was described as 'nilom' the reference court treated that property as dry land in the land acquisition case which was filed in respect of that property. 3. The learned counsel for the requisitioning authority would submit that no assumption can be made to the effect that the property covered by this document was dry land, even if it is assumed that 5 cents of land covered by Ext. A7 was treated as dry land. The mahazar in Ext. R2 file would show that at the time of taking possession of the land in LAA.613/10 -3- question it was only a wet land having plantains planted only on the boundaries of that property. The learned counsel appearing for the requisitioning authority has pointed out that only Rs.177/- was awarded by the L.A. Officer as value of improvements situated in the whole property which itself would indicate that the acquired property was not a dry land at all. 4. Based on the commissioner's report the reference court has found that though the property was described as wet land and though it is not a dry land, the acquired property can be treated as 'myal' land. It is something in between wet land and dry land. In view of the fact that 7 Ares of land was situated interior, having no road frontage, the land value was fixed for that land at Rs.4276/- per Are. Mr. Chacko, learned counsel for the appellant has made serious arguments relying upon commissioner's report that the entire property has to be treated as dry land. We cannot accept that argument since there is no evidence to show LAA.613/10 -4- that at the time of taking possession of land it was a dry land. The learned counsel has also relied upon the evidence of AW-2 and AW-3 to support his argument that the acquired property was dry land. It is seen that AW-2 and AW-3 are interested persons since they were also claimants in respect of properties lying near to the acquired property covered by the same notification. Not only that, their oral evidence cannot be a substitute for the documentary evidence. In the absence of any other evidence the contention that the acquired land has to be treated and shown in the category of dry land is unmerited. It is not disputed that 7 Ares of land acquired in this case was not lying contiguous to 26.5 Ares. It lies as a separate plot far interior. It is also not disputed. The rates at Rs.5075/- per Are for 'myal' land having road frontage and Rs.4276/- per Are for 'myal' land having no road frontage, situated interior having been fixed and approved by this Court in identical matters, the appellant cannot have any LAA.613/10 -5- grievance. The appeal must necessarily fail. 5. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. However, we direct that the appellant will be entitled for the full costs on the trial side, which means; the full costs certified as per the decree of the court below will be paid to the appellant. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-