IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 457 of 2011(D) -------------------------- LAR.278/2003 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT NO.1 --------------------------- O.P.LAKSHMANAN, S/O. KANNAN, AGED 74 YEARS, PENSIONER, RESIDING AT BAYOTH HOUSE KADAMBUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670101. 2. THE MUZHAPPILANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MUZHAPPILANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670663. ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN FOR R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAM KUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.NO. 457 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is the appellant. His property in Muzhappilangad village of Thalassery Taluk was acquired at the instance of Muzhappillangad Grama Panchayat for establishment of a play ground for the Panchayat. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 30.10.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1285/- per cent as against the claim of Rs.20,000/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, the appellant relied on Exts.A1 to A8. All these were pre notification documents pertaining to the land in the same village. Ext.A1 a document dated 11/2/1994 reflected land value of Rs.15,000/- per cent. Ext.A2 was a document dated 8/7/1997 executed by the appellant himself. Ext. A2, in our opinion,has been discarded for good reasons by the learned Subordinate Judge. Ext.A3 was the basis document L.A.A. No. 457 /2011 2 which was produced by the appellant to show that unlike the property under acquisition, Ext.A3 did not have road frontage. Exts.A5 and A6 were documents executed by a Housing Society in favour of his members relating to sale of housing plot. These documents all executed 9 months prior to the date of Section 4 (1) notification reflected land value at Rs.30,000/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge did not place complete reliance on Ext.A1 or A4 to A8. However, obviously keeping these documents in mind, what the learned Sub Judge did was to refix the market value at Rs.5,000/- per cent. In this appeal the appellant has limited his claim for land value at Rs.8,000/- per cent i.e. he claims that he be awarded Rs.3,000/- per cent more than what was awarded by the Reference Court. 2. Sri.R.Surendran learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext.A4 to A8 are identical documents executed by a local Housing Society in respect of identical properties. The properties were comparable to the properties under acquisition. There is every justification for fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 13,000/- per cent. However, as claim is limited to Rs.8,000/- per cent, it will suffice if the market value be refixed L.A.A. No. 457 /2011 3 at Rs.8,000/- per cent, so submitted the learned counsel. 3. On behalf of Sri.Shanvas Khan learned standing counsel for the respondent Panchayat, it was submitted that what was granted by the Reference Court is reasonable. Sri.C.R.Shyam Kumar learned senior Government Pleader submitted that there is no warrant for allowing further enhancement. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We notice that to whatever evidence that was adduced by the claimant there was no counter evidence adduced by the requisitioning authority. We feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was very miserly in fixing the market value of the property under acquisition. Even if the argument of the requisitioning authority and the Government that Exts.A4 to A8 and Ext.A1 pertain to small plots unlike the property under acquisition, which was an extensive property, is accepted and some deductions are made to the value reflected in those documents, then also we are sure that what is awarded by the Reference Court, which is at Rs.5,000/- per cent, is very low. L.A.A. No. 457 /2011 4 We allow this appeal and refix the market value of land under acquisition at Rs.7,000/- per cent. This means that for the land under acquisition, the appellant will be entitled for further compensation of Rs.2,000/- per cent. The appellant will be entitled for proportionate costs in this appeal. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the refixed compensation subject to the conditions we have imposed in our order in C.M.Appl No.1037/2011. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted and the conditions imposed in the C.M.Appln. No.1037/2011 have been complied with. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk L.A.A. No. 457 /2011 5