IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 443 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.178/1997 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT: ----------------------- SMT.V.S.METHILDA FRANCIS, RESIDING AT PAUL VIEW, KALITHURACHERRY, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,SRI.V.S.FERNANDEZ BY ADV. SRI.K.K.VIJAYAN SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- LA.A.No.443 of 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,J. The claimant is in appeal. His grievance is that the reference Court did not grant any enhancement and simply approved the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. The property under acquisition was in Kazhakootam Village and the acquisition was for the purpose of godown for the Food Corporation of India. The acquisition was pursuant to the relevant Section 4(1) notification published on 18/10/1977. LAO awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.1,724/- per Are. Before the reference court the evidence adduced by the claimant/appellant consisted mainly of Exts.A2 and A3 sale deeds and the oral testimonies of AWs.1 to 3. The court did not become inclined the rely on Exts.A2 or A3 on the reason that both those documents were post notification documents. According to the LA.A.No.443 of 2004 2 court below, in the absence of dependable pre notification documents no enhancements could be granted. But it appears to us that the court below failed to notice a relevant aspect. The respondents did not adduce even formal counter affidavit to the evidence which was adduced by the claimant. Exts.A2 and A3 were post notification documents which could not have been relied on. At the same time there was convincing oral evidence adduced by AWs.1 to 3 regarding the importance of the locality and the prevailing market value. Having made a re appraisal evidence on record, we feel that making a good guess, the correct market value of the land under acquisition at the relevant time on the basis of the evidence available on record, can be refixed at the rate of Rs.2,586/- which we round off to Rs.2,600/- per Are. Accordingly we set aside award of reference court and refix the value of the land under acquisition at the rate of Rs.2,600/- per Are. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. It is made clear that the appellant will be entitled to all statutory LA.A.No.443 of 2004 3 benefits otherwise admissible under Sections 23(2) & 28 of the L.A.Act. The appellant will not be entitled to get additional amount under section 23(1)(A). Appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE skj.