IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 372 of 2009() ---------------------------------- LAR.4/2005 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT :- --------------------------------------- HISHAD MOOSA JAS.V.K., S/O.V.K.MOOSAKUTTY, 1VAZHEMADHOM', COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :- ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. R2 BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.372 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January 2011 J U D G M E N T N.K.Balakrishnan, J. The claimant is in appeal. His property was acquired for the purpose of construction of a water tank and approach road in connection with the water supply scheme. Notification under section 4(1) was published on 13.12.1996. The nature of the land acquired was categorised as dry land. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.2065/- per cent. Aggrieved by the land value fixed by the L.A.Officer reference was sought. The learned Sub Judge enhanced the compensation by fixing the land value at Rs.3467/- per cent. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the basis document, Ext.R1 is dated 12.1.1994. It was in respect of 9 cents of land which was sold for a total consideration of L.A.A. No.372 of 2009 -: 2 :- Rs.40,000/-. Before the court below the claimant was examined as AW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were relied upon by him. The Officer of the respondent was examined as RW1 and Exts.R1 and R2 were marked. The Commissioner's report and plan were marked as X1 and X2. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Judge went wrong in not placing reliance on Ext.A4 which is a document dated 16.7.2001 only on the ground that it is a post notification document. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though Ext.A4 is a post notification document, on going through the document it can be seen that the Housing Board had entered into a higher purchase agreement with the allottees even in the year 1992 where under, the value of 5.906 cents of land was fixed at Rs.62,683/-, which may come to around Rs.1060/- per cent. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, if it is increased by 5% per year for passage of time, and if it is added, the land value would come to Rs.14,882/-. In this connection, the learned Govt. Pleader has pointed out that the L.A.A. No.372 of 2009 -: 3 :- land value of Rs.62,683/- for the extent of land mentioned above was inclusive of the developmental charges and charges for other ancillary purpose and as such it cannot be said that the value shown therein would reflect the actual market value of the land then prevailing. 3. The learned Senior Govt. Pleader has also drawn our attention to the admission made by AW1 that the acquired land is inferior to the basis land and so the land value fixed by the L.A.Officer would be higher than the value of the acquired land which would have fetched at the relevant time. This argument has been taken exception to by the learned counsel for the appellant pointing out that the learned Sub Judge has not considered these aspects which have been referred to earlier. The learned counsel would also submit that there is another document, Ext.A1, dated 16.8.1994 which is a pre- notification document, as per which 5 cents of land was sold for Rs.40,000/-. But the learned Govt. Pleader submits that since that was a small bit of land, having road frontage, centage value shown therein cannot be adopted. Ext.A2 L.A.A. No.372 of 2009 -: 4 :- which is dated 30.3.1995 was also relied upon by the claimant, as per which 35 cents of land was purchased by the LIC at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per cent. Since the land was purchased by the LIC for constructing a building, it must certainly be situated in a prime locality. The LIC must have purchased the property for a fancy price. Therefore, the learned Sub Judge was justified in not placing reliance on Ext.A2. Ext.A3 is also a post notification document and as such that was also not rightly relied upon by the learned Sub Judge. 4. Bearing in mind the value reflected in Ext.A4, we have to find out whether the land value can be fixed based on the same. But at the same time, the fact that the land value must necessarily include developmental charges and other charges those factors also have to be taken into account. We also took note of the fact that the acquired land is inferior in quality and is situated in a hill top and accordingly 40% can be reduced from the value shown in Ext.A4. Thus, we find that the centage value of the acquired land at the time of L.A.A. No.372 of 2009 -: 5 :- Ext.A4 can be fixed at Rs.5,000/- and adding approximately 5% increase per year, the land value can be fixed at Rs.6,500/- per cent. Accordingly, we refix the land value at Rs.6,500/- per cent and appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellants are entitled to all the statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(IA) and Section 28 of the L.A.Act. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt