IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 96 of 2011(D) ------------------------- LAR.304/2007 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- SHEELA KUMARI, MEENATHERIL, PONAKAM, THEKKEKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), RAILWAYS, KAYAMKULAM - 690 502. 2. SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R1 SRI.P.A.AZIZ, SC, RAILWAYS FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 96 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Thekkekara Village within the area of the Mavelikara Municipality was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification published on 6-10-2004. The purpose of the acquisition was for doubling of the railway line from Kayamkulam to Mavelikara. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.31,037/- per Are. Before the reference court it was mainly Ext.A1 judgment in LAR. No. 29/98 which was relied on by the claimant. Under Ext.A1, for property in Mavelikara Village, the court had fixed land value as on 11-3-1995 at Rs.50,000/- per Are. The court below did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1. The court below considered the two documents which had been relied on in Ext.A1 and found that the properties covered by those documents were enjoying road frontage unlike the property in question. LAA. 96/11 -2- Ultimately, it was by doing guess work based on the oral evidence of AW-1 to which actually there was no counter evidence, that the learned Subordinate Judge would re-fix the land value at Rs.48,000/- per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging what is described as inadequacy of the market value determined by the reference court. Sri. A.R.Dileep, learned counsel for the appellant addressed very strenuous arguments based on those grounds. Mr. Dileep submitted that the court below was not justified in discarding A1. Instead of relying on Ext.A1 the court below considered the two documents relied on in Ext.A1. This approach was irrational. The learned counsel submitted that we back in 1995, for A1 property the court had fixed a value of Rs.50,000/- per Are. Reliance could have been made on Ext.A1 and the market value could have been re-fixed atleast at Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. All the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant were resisted by the learned counsel for the LAA. 96/11 -3- Railwlay. The learned counsel submitted that there is no warrant for interference with the reasonable findings which are entered by the learned Subordinate Judge based on the evidence available on record. The learned Govt. Pleader would support the submissions of the learned counsel for the railway. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence. One aspect which is noticed is that whatever evidence which was adduced by the claimant not even documentary or oral evidence was adduced by the railway. The property was situated within the limits of Mavelikara Town. The distance between the property and the Mavelikara District Court campus was just 100 metres. While we can approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in not having placed specific reliance on A1 we feel that when it came to the question of fixing the market value the learned Judge was very miserly. On a better assessment based on the available evidence market LAA. 96/11 -4- value of the land under acquisition can be re-fixed at Rs.65,000/- per Are. It is accordingly re-fixed. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. However, while decree is drafted, the section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court while condoning the delay caused in the matter of filing the appeal. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-