IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 107 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.340/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): B- RESPONDENT -------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND A RESPONDENT --------------- 1. VAISHNAVI, W/O.KUTTAPPAN, KURUPPANTEPARAMBIL, PURAKKAD VILLAGE, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. PRASAD, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KURAPPANTEPARAMBIL, PURAKKAD VILLAGE, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA (SPL.TAHSILDAR (LA), N.W.NO.III, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1,2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009 ALONG WITH LAA.NOS.162, 173, 180 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 107, 162, 173, 180 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. All these are appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority- Inland Waterways Authority of India. The acquisitions were for the purpose of widening of narrow stretches of National Waterway No. III. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 24-08-1999. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 6829/- per Are which was refixed by the reference court at various rates ranging between Rs. 14500/- to 25,000/- per Are. 2. We have gone through the impugned judgments and we have heard Sri.V.Santharam, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair, Sri.D.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. While the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the reference court on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal particularly on the reason that the learned Subordinate Judge has not maintained consistency and uniformity in LAA.Nos.107, 162, 173, 180 OF 2006 2 the matter of redetermining the market value of properties which was treated as of equal value by the land acquisition officer. It was argued that there is considerable and unjustifiable disparity in the values fixed by the land acquisition officer. Categorisation made by the land acquisition officer having not been disapproved specifically, the learned Subordinate Judge was bound to maintain parity in the values which was awarded to the parties, so submitted 3. Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in most of the appeals would justify the varying rates of refixation by the learned Subordinate Judge. According to him, the categorisation was unscientific. Some of the properties were situated nearer to the National Highway 47 than the other properties involved in the cases. There has to be difference in values between properties which are lying nearest to the National Highway and properties which are lying far away from the National Highway. Sri.D.Anil Kumar would also support the submissions of Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and we have gone through the evidence. It is seen that the learned Subordinate Judge has disapproved the award of the land acquisition officer on the LAA.Nos.107, 162, 173, 180 OF 2006 3 reason that the basis document was never produced or attempted to be produced. In the absence of any serious endeavour by the government or the requisitioning authority to prove the transaction recorded in the basis document as a genuine transaction as well as the comparability of the property under acquisition with the property covered by the basis document, we are in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge for not having placed reliance on the basis document and approved the award of the land acquisition officer. But we also find that the learned Subordinate Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting each and every document which was put in evidence by the claimants. In land acquisition cases, the claimants occupy the position of plaintiffs and it is for the plaintiffs, who are desirous of getting positive awards, to adduce evidence and show that the market value of the acquired properties is as sought to be proved by them by the evidence adduced by them. In the instant case, we find that all the items of evidence - sale documents produced by the claimants have been rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge or not relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge. Ultimately, what the learned Subordinate Judge has done is he should do guess work on the basis of the oral evidence of the parties LAA.Nos.107, 162, 173, 180 OF 2006 4 and the general impression which he gathered regarding the market value of the land in the locality from the basis document and those documents put in evidence by the claimants which pertain to bare land only and refix the market value of the lands. 5. It will at once be stated that we are unable to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having fixed different rates for properties which were treated by the land acquisition officer as equal in value for the purpose of his award. 6. Sri.Gopalakrishnan Nair and Sri.D.Anil Kumar are certainly right when they say that there necessarily has to be a difference between the values of properties which are situated at a distance of 600 metres away from the National Highway and those properties which are situated 1500 metres away. The values of properties situated 600 metres away from the National Highway should be generally more than the value of properties situated 1500 metres away. But then, in these cases, it should be noticed that none of these properties were enjoying the direct frontage of National Highway and none of the properties can claim commercial potentiality. There is no evidence on record in this case as to what actually was the distance LAA.Nos.107, 162, 173, 180 OF 2006 5 between the properties and the National Highway margin. It is also seen that these properties were not having proper access to the National Highway. Even then, normally , there is justification for some differences in the values of properties situated 1500 away and 600 metres away from the National Highway. But such anomalies are inevitable when large scale acquisition is resorted to for major projects. Some persons may make unmerited gains. 7. The important question that we are called upon to decide is whether the market value determined by the land acquisition court for the properties situated at a distance of 600 metres away from the National Highway is proper. Addressing that question, what we find is that it is on guess work referable to oral evidence and the impression gathered by the learned Subordinate Judge from the various documents surveyed by him that the present refixation has been done. According to us, the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was not reasonable. It is not a good guess which was done by the learned Subordinate Judge. Making a better guess of the market value of the properties at the relevant time i.e. the point of time of Section 4(1) notification, we are of the view that the correct market value of the LAA.Nos.107, 162, 173, 180 OF 2006 6 properties will be only Rs. 14350/- ( 110% above the value of Rs. 6829/- per Are awarded by the land acquisition officer). We have by our judgment dated 24-6-2009 in L.A.A.No.1218/05 and connected matters refixed the land value of properties pertaining to the same acquisition for which the land acquisition officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 6829/- per Are at the same rate. For the reasons stated in that judgment also, these appeals are liable to be allowed and the market value of the properties are liable to be refixed at Rs. 14,350/- per Are. The result therefore is that all these appeals are allowed. The market value of the lands under acquisition is refixed at Rs. 14,350/- per Are. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.Nos.107, 162, 173, 180 OF 2006 7