IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 57 of 2007() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR.42/2003 of SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS. ----------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW.. RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS. ----------------------- 1. ELIZABETH, W/O.CHACKO THAMPAN, PANACKAL HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM. 2. JOSEPH P.THAMPAN, S/O.CHACKO THAMPAN, PANACKAL HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM. 3. PRINU VARKEY, S/O.CHACKO THAMPAN, PANACKAL HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R.4 SRI.N.P.SAMUEL FOR R1 TO 3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, ALONG WITH LAA NO.136 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.57 & 136 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 26th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. These are appeals filed by the State aggrieved by the fixation of land value by the reference court, Sub Court, Thrissur. The acquisition is for the purpose of construction of bus stand- cum-shopping complex at Kunnamkulam. 2. The acquired properties have been classified as dry land and wet land. For dry land, the value was fixed at Rs.77,176/- per Are and for wet land, the value was fixed at Rs.3,375/- per Are. The claimants had a case for market value at Re.1 lakh per cent. The reference court fixed the land value at Rs.92,610/- per Are for the property covered by LAR 42/03(LAA 57/07) and Rs.23,153/- per Are for the wet land. It is not in very serious dispute that the property is situated in an important locality. It is also common knowledge that the Municipality would not have otherwise chosen the location for bus stand and shopping complex. The importance of the locality is referred to in the report of the Advocate Commissioner also. Thrissur – LAA Nos.57 & 136/07 2 Guruvayoor Highway is passing through the eastern side of the acquired property. Parayil junction is situated at a distance of 150 meters from the property. Kunnamkulam Municipal Town Hall, Municipal Office, Government Hospital, Sub Treasury, bus stand, taxi park, Banks, Insurance Companies, Petrol bunks, Cinema Theatres, Churches, Municipal Shopping Complex etc. are situated very near to the property. The claimants sought to place reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 properties. Ext.A1 is a document executed on 18.5.1995. The land value is at the rate of Rs.13,47,500/- for about 6 cents of property. The document was executed by the State Bank of Travancore. The reference court rejected the same on the ground that it was only a small extent of property when compared to the acquired property, which is around 45 cents. It is now settled law that for the only reason that a document covers only a small extent of property, the land value therein need not be rejected as “fancy price” if other circumstances would indicate the fixation of proper value in the document (See the decision reported in The Deputy Director Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu & Others [JT 2007 (3) SC 18]. The reference court, according to us, ought to have LAA Nos.57 & 136/07 3 taken into consideration the fact that the document is executed by a nationalized bank, viz., State Bank of Travancore and such an institution normally does not and cannot go for purchase of a property for “fancy price”. Ext.A2 is a document executed on 6.1.1999 and the property covered by the document is 12 Ares. The value shown in the document is 37,48,500/-. However, that document was discarded on the ground that no separate value was shown in the document for the purpose of structures. We are afraid, the court was not fully justified in totally discarding the document. The nature of the structure should have been taken into consideration, as has come out in evidence while making an attempt to find out the proper market value. It is further seen that the court has placed reliance on Ext.C1 Commission report. It has come out in evidence that the acquired property, as already stated above, is situated in an important locality. The basic document has also been referred to by the Advocate Commissioner as well as the court. That is a document executed 8 months prior to Section 4(1) notification. The extent of the basic document, 6.09 Ares covers a total consideration of Rs.4,80,000/-., i.e., Rs.77,176/- per Are. Considering the LAA Nos.57 & 136/07 4 importance of the locality and considering the upward increase in the value of the property in the area, and the potential for developments, the court, we find, has fixed the land value by giving an enhancement of 25%, thus, fixing the land value at Rs.92,610/- per Are. As we have already stated, the value shown in Ext.A1 should also have been an indicator for the reference court in fixing the land value. Ext.A1 has shown market value at Re.1 lakh per cent in 1995. The importance of the locality, not being under serious dispute and the market value shown in 1995 for a transaction involving a nationalized bank being at the rate of Re.1 lakh, it cannot be said that the land value is in any way unjust or unreasonable. Therefore, the fixation of market value at Rs.92,610/- per Are cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable, despite the vehement contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader as well as Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality. As far as wet land is concerned, we find that only ¼ of the value of the dry land has been taken for the purpose of arriving at the market value. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the locational importance and locational advantages of the LAA Nos.57 & 136/07 5 acquired wet land, it cannot be said that the fixation of market value at ¼ of the value of the dry land is in any way excessive or unjust. The court has answered the reference only having regard to the evidence available on record by properly fixing the market value. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. The stay petitions in the appeals are also dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.57 & 136 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 26th June, 2008.