IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 1503 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.409/1997 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ---------------------- AHAMMED KUTTY, THENUTTI KALLINGAL, HILAL VIEW, MAVOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), KOZHIKODE. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THAKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009 ALONG WITH L.A.A NOS.1504/2009 AND 1505/2009. THE COURT ON 11/12/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN JJ. -------------------------------------- L.A.A No. 1503/2009, 1504/2009 & 1505/2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT The claimants are in appeal being aggrieved by the common judgment passed by the reference Court in L.A.R.No.408 of 1997, 409 of 1997 and 514 of 1997. L.A.A No.1503 of 2009 pertains to L.A.R No.409 of 1997, L.A.A.No.1504 of 2009 pertains to L.A.R.No.408 of 1997 and L.A.A.No.1505 of 2009 pertains to L.A.R No.514 of 2009. The property involved in L.A.A.No.1505 of 2009 is situated in Kalyalam village, while the properties in the other two cases were situated in Mavoor Village. But these properties were lying contiguously, though owned separately by the appellants in these appeals. The properties were acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 29.12.1993 for the construction of the Regulator-cum-Bridge across Chaliyar river for the Irrigation Department. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded uniform rate of Rs.1,477/- per cent. In the first instance, the Reference Court re- fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.12,000/- for the property included in L.A.R No.408 of 1997 and Rs.15,000/- per cent for the property included in other two L.A.Rs. This Court set aside the L.A.A No. 1503/2009, 1504/2009 & 1505/2009 2 judgment and remanded the L.A.R for a fresh decision. After the remand, a Commission was taken out and the evidence before the Reference Court consisted of the oral evidence of AW1, AW2 the Advocate Commissioner, who submitted C1 report. The documentary evidence on the side of the claimants consists of Exts.A1 to A6. On the side of respondents the only item of evidence was Ext.B1 certified copy of document No.841/1992 of S.R.O, Vazhakkad basis document. The Advocate Commissioner recommended for land value at the rate of Rs.35,000/- to 50,000/- per cent. The Reference Court did not specifically rely on any of the documents produced on the side of the claimants. But the Court however accepted the evidence of AW1 and AW2 and came to the conclusion that the property under acquisition was far superior to the property covered by Ext.B1 document. Ultimately what the Court below did was to some extent rely on the Commission report which was to the effect that the property was lying in an important location. But what the Court below did was to re-fix the value of land involved in L.A.RNO. 408 of 1997 and 409 of 1997 at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per cent. However, when it came to property in L.A.A No. 1503/2009, 1504/2009 & 1505/2009 3 L.A.R No.1504 of 2009, the Court below noticed that the above property was in Malappuram district unlike other property which were lying in Kozhikode district and accordingly the court below fixed the land value at Rs.15,000/-. In these appeals the claimants have raised various grounds contending that the land value re-fixed by the Reference Court is grossly inadequate. According to them, the market value as was recommended by the Advocate Commissioner should have been granted. However they have limited their claims for value at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per cent. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Sudhissh.R, the learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Sri.Suddhissh.R would argue at the very outset that the Court below was not justified in adopting double standards while fixing the market value in L.A.R.No.5104 of 2009 and the other properties. The property in L.A.A.No.1505/2009 is also situated in Mavoor Village itself. The learned counsel submitted that the Court below should not have rejected the documents produced. All the pre-notification documents produced reflected much higher value. The counsel requested that L.A.A No. 1503/2009, 1504/2009 & 1505/2009 4 enhancement may be granted. The submission of Sri.Sudhissh was stiffly resisted by Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, Senior Government Pleader. She submitted that the Government is aggrieved by the enhancement granted and the Government has preferred separate appeals. There was no justification for granting enhancement in the above cases over what had been granted under the judgment and decree. 3. While we are able to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in not placing specific reliance on Exts.A1 to A6 documents we are of the view that the learned Judge was a little miserly in the matter of fixation of the market value of the properties involved in L.A.A.No.1503 of 2009 and 1504 of 2009. On a better assessment based on the data furnished by the Advocate Commissioner regarding importance of the locality and the property under acquisition, its nearness to the important institutions and establishments and the oral evidence of AWs1 and 2 to which no counter evidence was adduced by the Government, we feel that the market value of the properties involved in those two L.A.A No. 1503/2009, 1504/2009 & 1505/2009 5 appeals can be re-fixed at the rate of Rs.18,500/- per cent. 4. We find considerable merit in the submission of Sri.M.Suddhish, that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in not awarding the same value to the properties involved in L.A.A.No.1505 of 2009 as was awarded in the other two cases. Even if the properties were lying in different villages in two different districts then also the reality is that the properties were lying adjacently. We notice merit in the argument of Sri.M.Suddhish based as the same is on the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer that the property in L.A.A.No.1505 of 2009 was also situated in Mavoor village. According to us even if it was situated in a different village in different district, the same value should have been awarded. 5. The result of the above discussions is that the appeals stand allowed. The market value involved in all these appeals are re-fixed at Rs.18,500/- per cent. The judgment and decree under appeal will stand modified accordingly. However, we clarify that in the matter of eligibility for interest under Section 28, the orders in C.M.Appli. No.2058 of 2009, 2050 L.A.A No. 1503/2009, 1504/2009 & 1505/2009 6 of 2009 and 2060 of 2009 will operate. The decrees will be drafted accordingly. Sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab L.A.A No. 1503/2009, 1504/2009 & 1505/2009 7