IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 397 of 2010(D) -------------------------- LAR.77/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. P.T.P.SUBAIDA, RESIDING AT P.T.P.HOUSE, PAPPINISSERY WEST (PO), KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.T.P.HUDAIFA,RESIDING AT P.T.P.HOUSE, PAPPINISSERY WEST (PO), KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR LA (NH), KANNUR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.3615/2010 IN LAA NO.397/2010 DISMISSED 3/03/2011 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- LA.A. NO.397 OF 2010 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT Claimants in LAR.No.77/2010 on the file of the Sub Curt, Thalassery are the appellants. An extent of 0.1477 hectares of land belonging to the claimants was acquired for Kannur Power Project. Section 4(1) notification was published on 5/9/1997. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.1,74,735/- per hectare. The reference court considered the case along with LAR.No.83/2002. The reference court re-fixed the land value at Rs.1,500/- per cent with statutory benefits. 2. The State of Kerala filed LAA.No.766/2007 challenging the land value. This Court while remanding the case held that the reference court relied on the judgment in LAR.No.62/2002 for fixing the land value at Rs.1,500/- per cent. Finding that the property covered in LAR.No.62/2002 is situated in Kalliassery Village whereas the acquired land is situated in -2- LAA.No.397/2010 Pappinissery Village, this Court held that there is apparent dis- similarity and incomparability of the acquired land with the land covered in LAR.No.62/2002. In the circumstances, this Court directed the reference court to decide the case afresh. At the instance of the claimant the Commissioner inspected the property and submit Ext.C1 report, in which the Commissioner reported that the value at the time of notification was between Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/-. The Commissioner also reported that the acquired property is situated 2 kms. away from Pappinissery town. The reference court did not rely on the Commissioner's report. 3. The reference court did not rely on the judgment in LAR.No.62/02 for the reason that the said property and the acquired property are lying in two different villages and therefore not comparable. The reference court, after taking into consideration the importance of the land under acquisition, fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent. I have perused the judgment in LAR.No.62/2002. The property acquired in the said case is situated -3- LAA.No.397/2010 in Kalliassery Village whereas the property acquired in the present case is situated in Pappinissery Village. The reference court re- fixed the market price of the acquired land in LAR.No.62/2002 at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent. The acquired land is used for prawn cultivation. In LAR.No.62/2002 it was found by the learned Judge that the the property acquired in the said case is also used for prawn cultivation. 4. Both properties are acquired for Kannur Power Project. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value of the acquired land at Rs.1,74,735/- per hectare. In LAR.No.62/2002 though the property is situated in different village, the land value adopted is the same as in the case under reference. The value adopted is Rs.1,74,735/- per hectare. This means that Rs.707/- per cent was fixed as the land value in both these cases. Since the properties are of the very same nature and having the very same potentialities, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the same price for the said lands, though these two properties are situated in different -4- LAA.No.397/2010 villages. In LAR.No.62/2002 the reference court fixed the land value at Rs.1,500/- per cent; but in the present case the reference court re-fixed the land value at Rs.1000/- per cent. Since the properties are valued at the same price by the Land Acquisition Officer, it can be reasonably presumed that both the properties are having the same importance and potentiality. Therefore, the court below was not justified in fixing the land value at Rs.1,000/- per cent in this case. The appellants claimed the land value at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per cent. It is stated in the memorandum of appeal that because of the constrains of court fee the appellants are limiting their claim to Rs.2,000/- per cent. The appellants are entitled to the enhanced land value at the rate awarded to the claimants in LAR.No.62/2002. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court Thalassery is modified and the land value in LAR.Nos.77/2002 is re-fixed at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent. The claimants are also entitled to the statutory benefits. In -5- LAA.No.397/2010 all other respects, the award passed by the reference court stands. The petitioners are also entitled to the proportionate costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.