IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 567 of 2009(B) ------------------------------ LAR.58/2003 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- VALAPARAMBAN JAMEELA, D/O.KUTTIRAYAN, EDAVANNA AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, (NOW RESIDING AT 4/112 H, OPPOSITE C.S.I. CHURCH, UPPER GUDALLOOR, GUDALLOOR, NILGIRIS). BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, K.S.E.B., MALAPPURAM. ADV. P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.567 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose The claimant is the appellant. Her property in Edavanna village was acquired at the instance of the Kerala State Electricity Board for the purpose of construction of a 33 KV Sub Station. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 30/10/2000. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 3,500/- per cent. The Reference Court without placing reliance on any of the documents produced by the appellant including Ext.A7 would do guess work and re-fix the value at ` 9,500/- per cent which interestingly was the value reflected in Ext.A7. 2. In this appeal, various grounds are raised challenging what is described as the inadequacy in the market value re- determined by the Reference Court. We may note at the L. A. A. No.567 of 2009 -2- very outset that by separate judgment, we have dismissed the appeal which was preferred by the Government against the award of the Reference Court. We had clearly stated that dismissal of the appeal will be without prejudice to the merits of the appeal preferred by the claimant. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Rajesh R. Kormath, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority and Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Sri.Rajesh drew our attention to Ext.A7 and to the Commission Report Ext.X1. He also drew our attention to the objections which the Government had filed to Ext.X1. According to Sri.Rajesh, Ext.A7 property was a wet land while the property under acquisition was rubber plantation. This vital difference between the two properties was lost sight of by the learned Subordinate Judge. He also submitted that Ext.A7 property was enjoying the frontage of Panchayath road only whereas the property under acquisition was enjoying the frontage of PWD road on one L. A. A. No.567 of 2009 -3- side and the frontage of the Panchayath road on the other side. He further submitted that the distance between Ext.A7 property and Edavanna town was much more than the distance between the acquired property and Edavanna town. The learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority would submit that there is no warrant for further enhancement. What has been granted by the learned Subordinate Judge is the maximum. The learned Senior Government Pleader would support all the submissions of the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority. 4. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick re-appraisal of the evidence, particularly Exts.A7, X1 Commission Report and the objections submitted by the Government to the Commission Report. We have also gone through the oral evidence adduced by RW1, the Land Acquisition Officer. We are of the view that there is justification for granting further enhancement to the appellant. Ext.A7 property was wet land in contrast to the property under acquisition which was dry L. A. A. No.567 of 2009 -4- land. It is a matter of common knowledge that the value of dry land will always be more than the value of corresponding wet land. Ext.A7 property had the frontage of only a Panchayath road whereas property under acquisition was enjoying the frontage of PWD road apart from the frontage of a Panchayath road. The distance between the acquired property and the Edavanna town was much lesser than the distance between Ext.A7 property and Edavanna town. In other words, the acquired property had several plus points in comparison to the property covered by Ext.A7. Having kept in mind the relative plus and minus points of the acquired property and Ext.A7 property, we are of the view that the acquired property is entitled for much more than what is paid under Ext.A7. Keeping all inputs in mind which are relevant for determination of market value of land in land acquisition cases, we allow this appeal and re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at ` 14,000/- per cent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section L. A. A. No.567 of 2009 -5- 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, while decree is drafted and provision is made for interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court in the order in C.M.Application No.716/09. 5. The appeal is allowed, however without any order as to costs. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE