IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 33 of 2010() ------------------------ LAR.154/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. JOLY S/O. MATHAI, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, ANGAMALY. 2. CHINNAMMA W/O. JOLY, -DO-DO- REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTU S/O MATHAI PADAYATTIL HOUSE, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.WILSON SMT.ROSE MICHAEL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 33 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their property in Angamaly Village were acquired for the purpose of up- gradation of M.C. Road from Angamaly to Muvattupuzha. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification published on 10-6-2003. Even though a claim was raised before the Reference Court that the real nature of the property was dry and not wet land as found by the L.A.O. in his award no convincing evidence could be adduced by the claimants to substantiate that claim. The court proceeded on the basis that the property is wet land. Ext. A1 was the one document produced by the appellant. But as A1 was in respect of dry land, the same was not taken into account by LAA. 33/10 -2- the L.A. Court. Finally, the L.A. Court applied rule of thumb and enhanced land value by 40% over the original rate of Rs.32,432/- per Are awarded by the L.A. Officer and thus re-fixed the land value at Rs.45,404/- per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing the award of the Reference Court. Smt. Rose Michael, learned counsel for the appellant addressed strenuous arguments before us. According to her, the property was actually dry land at the time of promulgation of Section 4(1) notification. She highlighted that as per the mahazar there were a few trees on the property. Smt. Latha T.Thankappan, learned Sr. Govt. Pleader submitted that one rubber tree aged 12 years, three rubber trees aged 8 years and three rubber saplings were available on the property under acquisition. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, at best it could be said that a minute fraction of the property under acquisition had been reclaimed by the LAA. 33/10 -3- claimant for the purpose of planting the above trees. She also fairly conceded before us that the property was bounded by compound walls. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we feel that though at the time of promulgation of Section 4(1) notification the land was wet in nature, the same was in the process of reclamation. Obviously, the property had the potentiality being reclaimed, as the same was enjoying direct frontage of M.C. Road and that too at a distance of one km. from the main junction at Angamaly, we are of the view that the value re-fixed by the court below is not adequate. Taking into account all relevant aspects of the matter, we allow this appeal and re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.60,000/- per Are. Appeal is allowed to that extent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits. However, during the period of 895 days which this Court condoned by our order dated 20th LAA. 33/10 -4- January 2010 in C.M. Appln. No. 54/10 Section 28 interest will not be applicable. Appeal is allowed, however, without any order as to costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-