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 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 1199 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- LAR.10/2006 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ----------------------------------- KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KOTTAYAM DIVISION. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROAD SECTION, CHANGANASSERY-686 101. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.SABU. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO.1200 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- LAA.NOs. 1199 & 1200 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Kerala State Housing Board, the claimant is the appellant. Their properties situated within the area of Changanassery Municipal Town were acquired for the construction of Changanassery by-pass. The acquisition was pursuant to section 4(1) notification published on 20.1.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer treated these properties to be wet lands and awarded a sum of Rs.6450/- per Are only. For the dry lands which were involved in the acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded varying rates of Rs.22,940/- per Are, Rs.25,234/- per Are, Rs.21793/-, Rs.20,646/- and Rs.19,499/- per Are on the basis of the advantage such as abutting road etc. On the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner who conducted inspection the reference court under the impugned judgment found that the lands under acquisition were not wet lands instead they were reclaimed lands. The appellant Housing Board had a specific LAA.Nos.1199 & 1200 of 2010 2 claim that the lands had been reclaimed for construction of buildings. The case was that the very acquisition of these properties in the year 1990 by the Housing Board was for allotment to the needy as house plots. The appellant adduced evidence including documentary evidence to support their claim that after acquisition in 1990 the lands had been reclaimed properly expending Rs.60,000/- per cent. The reference court did not accept the documents for the reason that the documents pertain to the entire extent which was acquired by the Housing Board and not to the acquired property alone. On evaluating the evidence on record we are convinced that the lands under acquisition at the relevant time were well reclaimed lands, almost as good as dry lands. 2. Under the impugned judgment what the learned Subordinate Judge did after accepting the lands to be reclaimed lands was to award 50% of the rate which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded to the dry lands, that is at the rate of Rs.22940/- per Are . It is obvious that the learned Subordinate Judge did not take into account the correct market value which could have been awarded to the lands for which the Land LAA.Nos.1199 & 1200 of 2010 3 Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.22940/- per Are. We notice several judgments of this court including the judgment in LAA.NO.857/2010, 859/2010 and 29/2011 by which this court considering appeals preferred by the claimants whose dry lands were acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. We find that under those judgments this court has refixed the value of dry lands at Rs.1,62,692/- per Are and that Rs.1,71,255/- per Are. As we are convinced that the properties in these cases were almost as good as dry lands, we are inclined to enhance the land value considerably. Taking into account all input which are relevant in the matter of determining the market value of lands under acquisition we allow both these appeals and refix the value of lands under acquisition uniformly at Rs.1,30,000/- per Are. Appeals are allowed as above . The appellant will be entitled for statutory benefits also admissible under section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However while provision is made in the LAA.Nos.1199 & 1200 of 2010 4 decree for interest under section 28, the concerned section will have due regard to conditions if any imposed by this court while condoning the delay caused in the matter of filing appeals. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ LAA.Nos.1199 & 1200 of 2010 5