IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 738 of 2008(D) -------------------------- APPELLANT: CLAIMANTS B TO G --------------------------- 1. KHASUR BEEVI PLAVILAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEETTIL CHUNAKARA MURI, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE. 2. SALIM RAWTHER PLAVILAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEETTIL CHUNAKARA MURI, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE. 3. NAZEER PLAVILAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEETTIL CHUNAKARA MURI, CHUNAKARA VILLAGE. 4. RAMLA BEEVI PLAVILAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEETTIL CHUNAKARA MURI, CHUNAKARA VILLAGE. 5. SHEREEF MUHAMMED PLAVILAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEETTIL CHUNAKARA MURI, CHUNAKARA VILLAGE. 6. ABDUL LATHIF PLAVILAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEETTIL CHUNAKARA MURI, CHUNAKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 738 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal need not be treated as defective. The claimants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the award of the land acquisition reference court. The case pertains to acquisition of a total extent of 8.10 ares of dry land in Sy. No.443/23 in Chunakara village for the purposes of Kallada Irrigation Project pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 18/11/1983. The awarding officer had granted land value at the rate of Rs. 3073/- per are for 7.80 ares. The officer had granted just Rs. 845/- per are for .30 ares of land which lay as road. Before the reference court, the evidence consisted mainly of Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R. NO. 404/90 of the sub court, Mavelikkara and the oral testimony of AW1- the claimant. Ext.A1 was the judgment in a case pertaining to acquisition of land for the same purpose covered by the very same section 4(1) notification. The claimants in Ext.A1 had also been awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 3073/- per Are for their acquired property. In other words, the land LAA.No.738/08 2 acquisition officer had treated the lands of the claimants in Ext.A1 and 7.80 ares of land which is subject matter of this appeal as having the same value for the purposes of determining compensation. The reference court noticed that Ext.A1 had probative value in the case since the same also related to acquisition for the same purpose and was covered by the very same section 4(1) notification. Under Ext.A1 the reference court had enhanced the land value for most of the properties covered by the award to Rs. 9895 per Are. Despite noticing the probative value of Ext.A1, the reference court did not become inclined to award the same enhancement to the subject properties. The court noticed that the acquired properties in this case did not have that much of locational importance and advantages which the Ext.A1 property was enjoying and on that reason what the reference court did was to award only 50% of the land value determined under Ext.A1 to the properties in this case. In my opinion the reference court was not justified in doing what it did. That court should have noticed that the principles which underlie provisions in the Land Acquisition Act such as Section 28 A is LAA.No.738/08 3 that the persons who are treated similarly by the awarding officer should be treated similarly by the reference court also. The award of the officer is only an offer which attains finality and acceptance only when the reference court passes its awards. It may be true that the acquired properties in Ext.A1 was situated in more important locality and had advantages such as road frontage when compared to the acquired properties in this case. But such things are liable to happen when group acquisition take place. It is only a fortuitous circumstance that the parties in this case are getting the same value as the properties which are having more locational advantages and importance than their properties. What is more important is that the land acquisition officer treated the acquired properties in this case and the acquired properties in Ext.A1 as having the same value for the purpose of determining the original compensation. The result of my above discussion is that I hold that the appellants are entitled to have the land value re-fixed for 6.07 ares of land acquired from their possession at Rs. 9896 per Are. Thus in modification of the judgment and decree under appeal, the land value LAA.No.738/08 4 for 6.07 Ares is re-fixed from Rs. 3073 per Are to Rs. 9895/- per Are which means that for that much extent of land the appellant will get enhanced land value of Rs. 6828/- per Are with statutory benefits such as interest, solatium at the rate 30% , the amounts under section 23(1) (A) for the relevant period apart from 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years under Section 34 of the Act. The parties will suffer their respective cost. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.738/08 5