IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 498 of 2006(D) -------------------------------- LAR.2/2004 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT. ------------------------------- MOOSA, S/O.ANTHRU, MECHERIMADATHIL, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT. ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), MUVATTUPUZHA VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.498 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This is appeal preferred by the claimant and the case pertains to acquisition of land in Velloorkunnam village within the limits of Muvattupuzha municipality for the purpose of construction of a bridge across the Muvattupuzha river at Chalikkadavu. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 17/01/2000 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.79,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied on Exts.A1 and A2 both pre-notification documents executed three years earlier in favour of Muvattupuzha municipality. They also relied on Ext.A3 post notification document and L. A. A. No.498 of 2006 -2- Ext.A5 unregistered notice. Exts.A1 and A2 revealed that the Muvattupuzha municipality had in the year 1997 paid a value of Rs.74,062/- per cent for properties having frontage of N.H.49 and for those properties having no frontage of that road, the municipality paid Rs.47,262/- per cent. Advocate Commissioner on an inspection of the properties reported that the acquired properties were superior to the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as AW3. Though she was forcefully cross examined by the Government Pleader, we do not think that her credit has been shaken. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place specific reliance on any of the documents. We approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in not having placed reliance on L. A. A. No.498 of 2006 -3- Exts.A3 and A5. But at the same time, we are of the view that the learned Sub Judge could have placed some reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 for the purpose of determining the market value. In the instant case, what the learned Judge has done is not to place reliance on any document but to grant 30% enhancement relying on the Commissioner's Report and the importance of the locality as revealed by that report. We see it is on guess work that the present enhancement of 30% is given. We have re-appraised the evidence. According to us, relying on Exts.A1 and A2 itself, the correct market value of the acquired properties in these cases could have been re-fixed at Rs.1,30,000/- per Are. We re-fix the land value of acquired properties at Rs.1,30,000/- and allow the appeal to that extent. L. A. A. No.498 of 2006 -4- 2. It is need less to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under law on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible due to our re-fixation. 3. This appeal is allowed as above. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-