IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 623 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.85/2002 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ------------------- K.V.LALITHA, SAMUDRA, DHARMAKKINAR, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA (NH), KANNUR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, 'KINFRA', THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW.. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, ALONG WITH LAA NO.665/2006 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.623 & 665 of 2006, 1497, 1089, 999, 1443, 1541, 1539, 1540, 1538, 1081 & CO 70/07, 679 & CO 69/07, 1158, 1178, 1789 & 1549 of 2007, and LAA No.1060 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. These are appeals filed by the State and claimants aggrieved by the fixation of land value by the reference court- Sub Court, Thalassery. There are Cross Objections as well. In some cases, there is delay in filing the appeals. The acquisition is for Kannur Power Project. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.1,74,735/- per hectare- around Rs.700/- per cent. In one set of cases, the reference court fixed the land value at Rs.1,000/- per cent, in another set at Rs.1,500/- per cent and in yet another set of cases, at Rs.2,000/- per cent. There is no dispute that the Land Acquisition Officer has treated the entire acquired area alike and has fixed a uniform land value. There is also no dispute on the factual position that the acquired area is water logged. However, LAA 623/06 & connected cases 2 the serious dispute is as to whether it is a shrimp farm or Kaipad. The claimants maintained the case that the area is a developed shrimp farm whereas the State maintained the position that it is a Kaipad, water logged and marshy land. Section 4(1) notification is issued in 1997. There is no serious dispute as to the factual position that the claimants had taken steps for development of the areas of shrimp farm by availing loans, in 1995. In the nature of the view we propose to take, we do not think it necessary to refer extensively to the factual matrix involved in the case, since according to us, in view of the divergent views taken by the reference court itself on the land value, the matter requires reconsideration. It has to be noted that the divergent views and consequential fixation of value differently is not made on the ground of any special locational advantage. The entire acquired land is a compact area and no particular area has any special locational advantage. In majority of the cases, the claimants have a case for Rs.5,000/- per cent and in LAA 999/07, 1089/07 & 1443/07, the claim is for Rs.10,000/- per cent. There are claims on other heads as well. 2. The fixation of land value is the duty of the reference court. True, such fixation is to be made based on the LAA 623/06 & connected cases 3 materials available on record. In view of the fact that the acquired land is a compact plot with no area having any special advantage, and the entire land being similar and similarly situated, the court cannot normally be expected to fix the value differently. It is in this context, the contention of the learned counsel for the party appellants that the documents produced by them in respect of the contemporaneous transactions of similar and similarly situated lands have not been properly appreciated by the reference court, assumes importance. From the judgments we do not also find any special reference to the importance of the locality, despite the report of the Advocate Commissioner on the value reflected in the documents produced by some of the claimants. 3. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the reference court. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals are condoned, the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside and the cases are remitted to the reference court for fresh consideration. We make it clear that it will be open to both sides to adduce fresh evidence. The reference shall be answered within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of the LAA 623/06 & connected cases 4 judgment. 4. In view of the remand as above, the party appellants and cross objectors are entitled to refund of the court fee. However, it is made clear that since the court fee is to be refunded, the party appellants need not pay the balance court fee since there is no point in paying the balance court fee first and getting the same refunded. Therefore, they will be entitled to refund of whatever court fee paid, after the permissible deduction. It is also made clear that in the event of enhancement, the same shall not go beyond the claim made by the claimants for the purpose of court fee in the appeals before this court. The stay petitions in the appeals are dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.623 & 665 of 2006, 1497, 1089, 999, 1443, 1541, 1539, 1540, 1538, 1081 & CO 70/07, 679 & CO 69/07, 1158, 1178, 1789 & 1549 of 2007, and LAA No.1060 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 22nd July, 2008.