IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 LA.App..No. 841 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.370/2008 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)NH, NO.III, VYTTILA. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH(R) SUB DIVISION, EDAPPALLY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- VASUDEVAN BHATTATHIRIPPAD, S/O. RAMAN BAHATTATHIRIPPAD, ATTUPURATHUMANA, THIRUVANKULAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 841 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though several apparently serious grounds have been raised and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader, addressed strenuous arguments based on those grounds, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal preferred by the Government. The acquisition was of land in Thiruvankulam village for the construction of National Highway 49 Thripunithura Bye pass. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 31/8/2005. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.98300/- per Are for 7.10 Are and Rs.15200/- per Are for 4.58 Ares. A lesser value was given for 0.58 Ares on the reason that the said portion was a pond. The learned Subordinate Judge analysing the evidence, which consisted of Exts. A1 to A7, Exts.R1 to R8, Commission reports Exts.C1 to L.A.A.No.841/2010 2 C1(b) and the oral evidence AW1 to AW4, came to the conclusion that the market value of the land is to be refixed uniformly at Rs.1,53,240/- per Are, thus granting 56% increase over the value which had been given for a substantial portion of the land. 2. The Government Pleader gave more thrust in her submission regarding the award by the Court at the same rate for 0.58 Ares, which was lying as a pond. According to her, the said action is not justified as no pond will fetch the value of pucka dry land. The submission of the Government Pleader in this case has only superficial attractiveness because we find that the pond here was not an ordinary pond. It was a pucka pond. It has been found , on the basis of the commission report, to be a pucka pond properly constructed with side walls and steps leading down to the bathing area. It was well maintained. It was occupying about one and half cents of land only. The expert engineer in Ext.C1(b) report had recommended for much higher value for this pond. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment has observed as follows; L.A.A.No.841/2010 3 “According to me if a property wherein a pond is also situated is acquired or purchased, there need not be any separate valuation for the pond and the balance property”. The above observation of the learned Subordinate Judge is too general to receive acceptance from us. Whether the same value can be given for the pond and the remainder extent of the land under acquisition will depend on several factors such as the extent of the pond, the nature of the pond whether it is fortified by retaining walls etc. We agree with the learned Subordinate Judge in his view that in the present case the pond in question can be awarded the same value as the dry land especially in view of Ext.C1(b) report. 4. As for the enhancement granted, it is very clear to our mind that the enhancement granted is not excessive. According to us, the Government cannot have any legitimate grievance regarding the enhancement in land value as the property was situated in Thiruvankulam Panchayat, which has now been made part of the Thripunithura Municipality, and is situated very close to the hill palace the seat of the Maharajas of the erstwhile state of Cochin. L.A.A.No.841/2010 4 The appeal, therefore, fails and will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk