IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 234 of 2006(C) ------------------------- LAR.7/2002 of II ADDL. SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------- THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR,SC,GURUVAYUR D.B RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/IST RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------- 1. BALASUBRAMANIAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, KADUKOTTINGAL HOUSE, THAMARAYUR, THRISSUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSIDLAR (LA), GURUVYAOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2009, ALONG WITH L.A.A258/06 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.234 of 2006, L.A.A. No.258 of 2006 & Cross Objection No.21 of 2007, and L.A.A. No.272 of 2006 & Cross Objection No.24 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J These appeals are preferred by the Requisitioning Authority/The Administrator Guruvayoor Devaswom. The acquisition was for the purpose of Elephant Sanctuary at Punnathur Kotta in Perakom village of Chavakkad taluk. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the lands under acquisition into five. Properties having direct frontage of the public PWD road were included in category-A and they were awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13793/- per cent. Properties in category-B were lands having frontage of L. A. A. No.234 of 2006 & con. cases -2- less important roads and were awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13413/- per cent. We need not be concerned in these cases with properties in category C and D. properties in category-E were properties which were lying as 'thodu' and for properties in this category the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3354/- per cent. The Reference Court on the basis of the evidence which were adduced by parties, re-fixed the value of all the lands under acquisition uniformly at Rs.18237/- per cent. Apart from challenging the re-fixation of market value by the Reference Court as excessive, the appellants contend that the court below was not at all justified in awarding a uniform rate for properties under acquisition ignoring the categorisation made by the L. A. A. No.234 of 2006 & con. cases -3- Land Acquisition Officer completely. In the memorandum of Cross Objections filed by the respondents in L.A.A.272/06 (C.O.24/07) and in L.A.A.258/06 (C.O.21/07), the Cross Objectors/ claimants contend that Exts.A1 to A3 produced by them should have been followed and the court below should have awarded much higher amounts by re- fixing the market value of lands at far above what is presently fixed. However, in the Cross Objections, they are limiting their claims for enhancement at Rs.1,000/- per cent. 2. Having heard the submissions of Mr.N.Rajagopalan Nair, the Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority and those of by Sri.V.Chitambaresh, the Senior Counsel for claimants L. A. A. No.234 of 2006 & con. cases -4- and having made a re-appraisal of the evidence available on record, we are in agreement with Sri.Rajagopalan Nair in his submission that the Reference Court was not justified in completely doing away with the categorization adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer. When acquisition of land in large scale is resorted to belting or categorization method is recognized and in this case, according to us, there was justification for categorizing the lands on the basis of proximity to the main thoroughfare and also the nature of the lands. In other words, according to us, the value of properties which were included in category-E could not have been more than 25% of value of properties included in category-B. But our own re-appraisal of the evidence, we feel that the L. A. A. No.234 of 2006 & con. cases -5- learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in re- fixing the value of the properties under category-B at the rates granted now. On a better assessment of the market value of those properties, the same can be re- fixed at Rs.19,000/-. Thus, in modification of the judgment of the Reference Court, we re-fix the value of the properties for which the claimants in L.A.A Nos.272/06 and 258/06 were awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13413/- per cent by the Land Acquisition Officer, at Rs.19,000/- per cent. But the value of the properties included in category-E for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3354/- per cent, the value will stand reduced to Rs.4750/- per cent. It is accordingly, ordered. L. A. A. No.234 of 2006 & con. cases -6- 3. The result is that all these appeals and the cross objections stand allowed. It is made clear that on the total enhanced compensation to which the Cross Objectors/claimants become eligible by virtue of this judgment, they will be entitled for all statutory benefits. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-