IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1048 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.538/1994 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- KRISHNA PILLAI, VELLOOR VEEDU, HARIPAD VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. FOR R1 SRI.HAREESH.M FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON 03/02/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 1048 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The Government is in appeal. The acquisition was of property in Harippad Village for the purpose of widening and strengthening of Harippad – Veeyapuram Road. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 7-2- 1991. LA Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.9606/- per Are. Before the reference court, the one tangible item of evidence was Ext.A1 judgment in LAR. No. 353 of 1993. The learned Subordinate Judge found on the basis of the evidence that A1 property was slightly superior to the property under acquisition. Under Ext.A1 a value of Rs.31,122/- per Are had been awarded. What the court below did was to make a deduction of 5% on the said value and refix the value at Rs.29,566/- per Are. The learned senior Govt. Pleader would assail the impugned judgment. LAA. No. 1048/07 - 2 - He conceded that A1 has become final in the sense that LAA. No. 1555 of 2000 preferred by the Government against A1 was dismissed. However, he drew our attention to the judgment of this court in LAA. No. 1186 of 2007 and a few other judgments pertaining to acquisition for the same purpose pursuant to the very same notification and submitted that under those judgments this court has refixed the value at Rs.18,404/- per Are. He submitted that A1 was not a reliable document since the acquisition there was on the basis of a subsequent notification, some nine months after the present notification. He also submitted that though an Advocate Commissioner was taken to the property, the claimant never wanted the Commissioner to make a comparison of A1 property and the property under acquisition. 2. All the submissions of Mr.Basant Balaji were resisted by Mr.V.Sajith Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. LAA. No. 1048/07 - 3 - He took us through the evidence of AW1. He submitted that it was in evidence that the distance between A1 property and the property under acquisition was only 50 metres. He took us through the commission report also and submitted that the property was situated in the heart area of Harippad town. According to him, since A1 has become final, the court below was certainly justified in relying on A1. Even the deduction of 5% made was not justified, according to Mr. Sajith Kumar. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. We notice the judgment of this court in LAA. No. 1186/07 and 1311 of 2007 and other cases pertaining to the very same acquisition wherein land value has been refixed at Rs.18404/- per Are. At the same time, we are not inclined to accept the argument of the learned Govt. Pleader that the land value awarded in this case should be reduced to Rs.18,404/- per Are. In this particular case, there was LAA. No. 1048/07 - 4 - clear evidence without any counter evidence to the effect that the property was situated in a commercially very important area of Harippad town. There was also evidence to the effect that the distance between A1 property and the property under acquisition was only 50 metres. Ofcourse, A1 was evidently superior to the property under acquisition. We are of the view that the reliance placed on Ext.A1 was justified. But the learned Govt. Pleader is certainly right in submitting that the deduction made on A1 value is sufficient. We take into account the fact that A1 is an acquisition pursuant to a notification 9 months after the notification in the present case. Taking all these aspects into account we rely on A1 itself and refix the value of land in question at Rs.25,000/- per Are. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent only. Needless to mention that the claimant will be entitled to all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation by LAA. No. 1048/07 - 5 - virtue of the present judgment. It is made clear that this judgment will not be a precedent for any other case pertaining to acquisition for Harippad – Veeyapuram Road. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-