IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1399 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.179/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. P.N.SUMANGALA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K. SREEKUMARAN NAIR, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, SARASWATHY VILASAM, BUNGALOW,T.C. 41/1862, KADIYAPATTANAM LANE, IRNIMUTTAM, 2. THE SECRETARY, TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM . ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, TRIDA FOR R2 SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 1399 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The Government is in appeal. The property was in Manacaud Village. The acquisition was for purpose of widening of LMS - Attakulangara Road. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 7-8-2004. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,97,521/- per Are. Before the Reference Court the claimant relied on documents Exts.A1 to A14 and the oral testimonies of AWs. 1 and 2. On the side of the Government the evidence consisted of Exts.R1 to R4 series only. The Government did not adduce even formal counter oral evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge noticed Ext.A3 which was in respect of acquisition of land in Vanchiyoor Village in 1997 and observed that if proper additions are given based on Ext.A3 the correct value to be given for the properties will be Rs.37 lakhs. What the learned Judge ultimately did was to re-fix the market value at Rs.29,64,000/- per Are on appreciating the other evidence available in the case. 2. The Government has raised various grounds in this appeal assailing the judgment of the Reference Court and Smt. Sumangala, learned Govt. Pleader drew our attention to our own judgment in LAA. No. 2008 of 2008. She submitted that the properties involved in that case was more superior, acquired for the same purpose, pursuant to the same notification. For those properties this Court has re-fixed value of land at Rs.24 lakhs per Are. As the properties in this case are inferior, the maximum value which the properties in this case can be granted is Rs.15,73,886/-. Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the respondent claimant submitted that Ext.A3 was a very reliable document. A3 was confirmed by the Supreme Court also. If A3 is relied on, the market value will have to be re- fixed at Rs.37 lakhs. He pointed out that the property was situated in Trivandrum East Fort itself, just opposite to the Luciya Hotel. The locality of the property is in fact very important than the locality of the properties covered by judgment in LAA. No.2008 of 2008. He requested that the impugned judgment be sustained. 3. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are not in a position to accept the argument of Mr.R.S.Kalkura based on A3. A3 was of property situated in a different village, viz., Vanchiyoor Village. According to us, the our own judgment in LAA. No. 2008 of 2008 will have more probative value for determining the market value of the property in this case. But as already observed, the land acquisition officer himself awarded much higher value for the property in LAA. No. 2008 of 2008, though the acquisition was for the same purpose, pursuant to the same notification. If we allow proportionate increase based on the judgment in LAA. No. 2008 of 2008 the market value of the land under acquisition in this case will have to be reduced to Rs.15,73,886/- per Are. But we find there is justification for granting some more value for the land under acquisition in this case. We notice that against the evidence adduced by AWs. 1 and 2 regarding the importance of the property under acquisition which was stated to be situated in East Fort itself, opposite to Hotel Luciya, the Government did not adduce even formal counter evidence. That being so, we are of the view that interests of justice demands that something more than the proportionate increase based on our own judgment in LAA. No. 2008 of 2008 is awarded to the property in this case. Hence we re-fix the value of the land under acquisition in this case at Rs.17,50,000/- per Are. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. Claimant will be entitled for 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. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-