IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 114 of 2005() ------------------------- LAR.67/2002 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: -------------- M.K.IBRAHIM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.UMMER HAJI, FATHIMA MANZIL, KURAVANGAD, PERUVATOOR P.O., KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ SRI.A.B.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS : --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 271 OF 2005 & CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.114,270, 271,654,385/2005 & 65,64/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. All these appeals are by the claimants and they pertain to acquisition of land in Chengottukavu village near Koyilandy town for the purpose of construction of railway over bridge at NH-17. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 29/11/2000. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 4988/- per cent as against claim for Rs.25,000/- per cent. The evidence before the reference court on the side of the appellants consisted of Exts.A1 to A4 and oral evidence of Aws1 and 2. On the side of the respondents the solitary evidence was RW1. There was also Exts.C1 commission report and C2 plan submitted by the commissioner who inspected the acquired properties as well as the properties covered by Ext.A2 document. Exts.A3 and A4 were court awards in respect of L.A.A.No.114/05 & conn.cases. 2 cases relating to acquisition of land in Koyilandi town. Though Exts.A3 and A4 revealed award of higher land value, the court below did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A3 and A4 on the reason that Exts.A3 and A4 were in respect of properties in Koyilandy town. According to us, the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in not placing reliance on Exts.A3 and A4. The court below did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A2 either. According to the court below Ext.A2 was in respect of small a plot situated on the boundary of Koyilandy Municipal Town. Ext.A2 had commercial potentialities according to the court below. What the court below ultimately did was to rely on the basis document, which revealed land value of Rs.5,000/-, notice on the basis of the commission report that the basis property was a plot of irregular shape in contrast to the acquired properties, which were plots of regular shape. The court below found that the basis property was superior and in view of that superiority, the court below found that the market value of the acquired properties should be 7,000/- per cent. Considering the regularity in the shape of the acquired property, the court below added Rs.1,000/- more and accordingly refixed the land value of the L.A.A.No.114/05 & conn.cases. 3 acquired properties at Rs.8,000/-. 3. We have heard Sri.P.M.Mohammad Shiraz, learned counsel for the appellant and also those of Sri.Basant Balaji,learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent. 4. Even though the second respondent – Kerala Roads & Bridges Development Corporation has been served with notice in all the appeals, there is no appearance for them. Sri.P.M.Mohammad Shiraz would address us on the basis of all the grounds raised in the appeals. He drew our attention to Ext.A2 and submitted that the court below went wrong in rejecting Ext.A2 completely. He read over to us Ext.C1 commission report and submitted that advocate commissioner had clearly reported, on the basis of inspection of Ext.A2 and the acquired properties, that Ext.A2 document was a much better basis for determining the market value of the acquired property than the basis document itself. Ext.C1 report was accepted by the court below to a certain extent. Ext.C1 report should have been accepted completely by the learned Subordinate Judge according to the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Sri.Basant Balaji would submit that it is very unsafe to L.A.A.No.114/05 & conn.cases. 4 rely on Exts.A2. According to him, the interval between Exts.A2 and 4(1) notification in this case is just one month. The plot is just 6 cents in extent and there is every likelihood that a higher land value was deliberately shown in Ext.A2 document, so that before the reference court the parties can claim that value, so submitted the Government Pleader. 6. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. We are not much impressed the learned Government Pleader's submissions with reference to Exts.A2 . Ext.A2 has been properly proved in this case by examining AW2. It is not suggested to AWs1 or 2 that Ext.A2 is a document deliberately brought into existence for the purpose of staking higher land value. The only suggestion to AW1 was that property in A2 has commercial potentiality for which the purchaser paid a fancy price. 7. We are prepared to accept argument of the Government Pleader that Ext.A2 property was superior than the acquired properties. Ext.A2 property was nearer to Koyilandi town and had more commercial potentiality than the acquired properties. But at the same time it cannot be forgotten that the distance between Ext.A2 and the acquired properties was just 1 K.m. The L.A.A.No.114/05 & conn.cases. 5 acquired properties were also situated by the side of the N.H. and those properties were also having some commercial potentialities. The advocate commissioner had filed a report in which Ext.A2 had been reported to be a better basis for determination of the market value. To the commission report, the Government did not file objection nor the commissioner was cross examined by the Government. 8. Our observations in the forgoing paragraphs notwithstanding, we are not inclined to grant the value recommended by the Advocate commissioner for the acquired properties in these cases. However, we place some reliance on Ext.A2 and hold that the correct market value of the properties acquired in these cases should be atleast Rs.10,000/- per cent. Accordingly, allowing all these appeals we refix the market value at Rs.10,000/- per cent. It is needless to mention that the appellants claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible on account of our re fixation of the market value under this judgment. L.A.A.No.114/05 & conn.cases. 6 All the appeals will stand allowed as above with proportionate costs to the appellants. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk