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 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 350 of 2011(B) --------------------------------- LAR.129/2007 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA LAC.NO.378/2005 of SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A.NO.1, KOLLAM ........................................ APPELLANT(S): B CLAIMANT ----------------------------------------- SUBHASH PAPPACHAN, SUJA VILASATHU VEEDU, PATHKAL MURI, MYLOM, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PAPPACHAN, S/O.YOHANNAN, SUJA VILASATHU VEEDU, PALLICKAL MURI, MYLOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A.NO.I, KOLLAM. 690 001. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ROSE MICHEAL THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011 ALONG WITH LAA.NO.353/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.350 and 353 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in Kottarakkara village situated at one of the most important points in Kottarakkara town abutting M.C.Road as well as Kollam - Chenkotta National Highway were acquired for the purpose of widening of M.C. Road. As against their claim for Rs.37,05,000/- per Are Land Acquisition Officer awarded to them land value at the rate of Rs.1,18,516/- per Are. Before the reference court the appellants placed reliance on Ext.A2 document dt. 1.9.1991 and Ext.A3 document dt. 14.3.2002. Ext.A3 document reflected a very high land value. But unfortunately Ext.A3 document took in portions of a building also and the document did not show value of land separately. As for Ext.A2, the said document revealed that even in 1991 the value paid by the purchaser was very high. But as in the case of Ext.A3, Ext.A2 also took in portion of a building. Learned Subordinate Judge found it unsafe to place reliance on Ext.A2 or A3. Ultimately noticing the importance of the locality with reference to the Mahazar prepared by the LA authority the learned Sub Judge would enhance the land value by cent percent. LAA.350 & 353 of 2011 -2- 2. In these appeals the ground raised is that the court below should have placed reliance on Ext.A2 and A3 and refixed the land value at Rs.12,35,500/- per Are. It is pointed out that to whatever evidence that was adduced from the side of the claimants, there was absolutely no counter evidence on the side of the Government. Sri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, learned counsel for the appellants addressed us in detail based on the grounds raised. Mr.George Varghese argued that Ext.A2 and A3 should have been relied on and the market value should have been refixed at Rs.12,35,500/- per Are. Learned counsel highlighted that to whatever evidence the claimants adduced there was absolutely no counter evidence. Learned senior Government Pleader Sri.C.R. Syamkumar and learned Government Pleader Smt.Rose Michael, who appeared in these appeals for the Government submitted that Ext.A2 and A3 cannot be relied on at all. Those two documents do not show the value of the lands separately. The comparability of the property under acquisition and the properties covered by those two documents is not brought on record by taking out a commission. It is on guess work that the learned Sub Judge has granted cent percent increase to the appellants. According to the learned Government Pleaders it is the Government who should have been aggrieved and not the appellants. LAA.350 & 353 of 2011 -3- 3. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We are in agreement with the learned Government Pleaders as well as the learned Subordinate Judge when they say that the evidence on record will not justify awarding to the appellants land value higher than what is presently awarded. At the same time, having regard to the importance of the locality where the property is situated - the same being on Pulamon junction abutting not only the M.C.Road, but also the National Highway that proceeds to Punalur side- we feel that the correct market value is probably more than what is presently fixed by the learned Sub Judge. We are inclined to grant liberty to the appellants to adduce further evidence. But such opportunity will be given to the appellants only on conditions. 4. Result of the above discussion is that the Judgment and decree are set aside and LAR Nos.129/2007 and 130/2007 will go back to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakkara. Learned Sub Judge will permit the appellants to adduce further evidence in support of their claim for land value. It is open to the appellants to rely not only on the sale document but also on court judgments which are relevant. If the appellants adduce fresh evidence, the Government should be allowed to adduce counter evidence. Learned Sub Judge will complete the enquiry LAA.350 & 353 of 2011 -4- and pass revised award within four months of parties entering appearance pursuant to this remand. This order of remand will be subject to the following conditions: (1) The appellants will forfeit 50% of the total court fee payable on the appeal memorandum. Only 50% of the court fee will be refunded to them. (2) In case the appellants become eligible for enhanced land value over and above what is fixed under the impugned judgments, under the revised awards such enhanced land value will not carry interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 14.1.2011 till the date of the revised award to be passed by the learned Sub Judge. Parties will enter appearance before the reference court on 15.11.2011. Transmit lower court records forthwith to the sub court, Kottarakkara. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb