IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 915 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.254/2007 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS A TO C: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.E.N.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ELAMBLASSERY ILLAM, KALLOORKKADU. 2. DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.E.N.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ELAMBLASSERY ILLAM, KALLOORKKADU. 3. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ELAMBLASSERY ILLAM, KALLOORKKADU. BY ADVS. SRI.N.NEELAKANDHAN NAMBOOTHIRI, SRI.P.S.NARAYANA RAJA. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.V.I.P., DN.NO.III, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.915 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 Judgment Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in Kalloorkadu Village was acquired for the purpose of Marthoor Distributory, part of the M.V.I.P. Section 4(1) notification was published on 31.5.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category C and fixed the land value at Rs.11,500/- per Are corresponding to Rs.4652/- per cent. As per the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, category C properties did not enjoy any road frontage while category A property had the frontage of P.W.D. road and category B properties were enjoying frontage of only Jeep road. Before the reference court the evidence consisted of Exts.A1, R1 and C1 series and the oral evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2. Significantly, not even formal counter oral evidence was adduced on the side of the Government. It was mostly on Ext.A1 and the Commissioner's report that the appellants relied on. Ext.A1 was a pre-notification document executed some three LAA915/2010 2 months prior to Section 4(1) noification. Ext.A1 was of land in the same village and kara, but situated at a distance of 2.75 K.M. away from the acquired property. The Commissioner reported that Ext.A1 property is inferior to the property under acquisition. Ext.A1 was properly proved by examining A.W.2, the purchaser. Exception was taken by the Government to Ext.A1 saying that the same is part of a real estate transaction. It was also urged that the Ext.A1 property was situated in a most important area having more commercial importance and more potential value than the acquired property. Therefore, the court below did not place reliance on Ext.A1. However, reliance was placed on Commissioner's report and it was found by the learned Subordinate Judge that the property under acquisition did enjoy the frontage of P.W.D.road. Accordingly, the court below upgraded the property to category A. For the properties in category A, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per Are. After discarding Ext.A1 what the learnged Subordinate Judge did was to increase the value and award to the appellant at the rate of Rs.18,200/- per Are corresponding to Rs.7363/- per cent. In this appeal various LAA915/2010 3 grounds are raised challenging what is described as the inadequacy in the compensation determined. 2. Mr.Narayana Raja, Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed strenuous arguments before us in support of all the grounds raised in the Appeal Memorandum. According to him, the court below is not justified in discarding Ext.A1. Ext.A1 property was enjoying frontage of private road only whereas the acquired property was enjoying frontage of P.W.D. road. Therefore, counsel requested that at least the value reflected in Ext.A1 be granted in full to the land under acquisition. 3. All the submissions of Mr.Narayana Raja were resisted by Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned Senior Government Pleader. She, however, would concede that it is a fact that while Ext.A1 property was not enjoying frontage of P.W.D. road, the acquired property was found enjoying such frontage. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We find that though the acquired property was enjoying P.W.D.road frontage unlike Ext.A1 property which was enjoying only private road frontage, considering the commercial LAA915/2010 4 importance of that locality, Ext.A1 property had some superiority. We are therefore not inclined to award the same value as reflected in Ext.A1 to the property under acquisition. At the same time, we are of the considered view that Ext.A1 is relevant in determining the market value of the property. Noticing the value reflected in Ext.A1 and the aspects such as importance of the locality, road frontage etc. discernible from the evidence on record, we feel that it is reasonable to fix the market value at Rs.11,000/- per cent. It is accordingly fixed. The appeal is allowed as above. The claimants/appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of the refixation. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd LAA915/2010 5 LAA915/2010 6