IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 673 of 2008() ----------------------------------- LAR.1/2002 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S)/SUPPL. 2ND RESPONDENT (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.No.2013/03 DATED 27.11.2003 :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 :- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDULLA MUSLIAR, S/O.CHULLIKODE, KONNACHALIL KUNHALANKUTTY, THAVAVOOR, MUTHUVALLOOR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2011 ALONG WITH LAA NOS. 674 /2008 & 686/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt LA.App..No. 673 of 2008 ORDER IN I.A.Nos.1589/2008 & 2439/2008 IN L.A.A.No.673/2008 Dismissed. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. 28.2.2011. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.673, 674 & 686 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The Requisitioning Authority, the Kerala Water Authority is in appeal. Lands belonging to the party respondents in Muthuvalloor Village was acquired for the purpose of construction of 23.04 lakhs litres capacity GLSR at Chullikode . The L.A.Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,561/- per cent. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment placing reliance mostly on Ext.A1 would refix the land value at Rs.5,000/- per cent. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging what was described is the excessiveness of the compensation awarded to the claimants. Smt.M.P.Mary representing Smt.S.Ambikadevi, the learned Standing L.A.A. Nos.673, 674 & 686 of 2008 -: 2 :- Counsel for the appellant authority would assail the impugned judgment on the various grounds raised in the appeal memorandum. She submitted that reliance placed on Ext.A1 is not justified. According to her, Ext.A1 was brought into existence at the instance of the claimants showing a higher value so as to stake a higher compensation in prospective land acquisition proceedings. The learned counsel for the party respondents, Mr.P.Venugopal would per contra justify the impugned award. According to him property under acquisition is far away from the basis property. The Awarding Officer did not take into account the passage of time between the basis document and Section 4(1) notification. As regards Ext.A1 there is only a feeble challenge which is not substantiated. According to the learned counsel, what is awarded now is far below the current market value. 3. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. Ext.A1 document was marked in evidence through the claimant himself. Both the L.A.A. Nos.673, 674 & 686 of 2008 -: 3 :- government as well as the Requisitioning Authority challenged Ext.A1 in cross examination and it was suggested that Ext.A1 was brought into existence at the instance of the claimants by one Moideenkutty, a relative of the claimants. It was suggested also that higher market value was shown in the document so that they would get a better compensation in the LAR proceedings. But as rightly noticed by the Reference Court, Ext.A1 was within a period of 3 years prior to Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A1 document was never considered or discussed by the L.A.Officer. If the L.A.Officer had considered the document and rejected the same on the reason that it does not record a genuine transaction, perhaps the position of the Government and the Requisitioning Authority would have been stronger. Even then, we find that in the light of the consistent challenge on the genuineness of Ext.A1, the claimants ought to have examined one of the parties to Ext.A1. We would have been inclined to remit the matter L.A.A. Nos.673, 674 & 686 of 2008 -: 4 :- to the court below giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. But, we feel that remitting the matter will cause some prejudice to the claimants. Hence accepting the arguments by the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority and the learned Govt.Pleader, that the probability of a higher value having been mentioned in Ext.A1 cannot be ruled out, we are inclined to reduce the market value fixed by the court below slightly. We refix the market value of the land at Rs.4,700/- per cent. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. The claimants will be entitled to the statutory benefits on the refixed compensation. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt