IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 869 of 2005() ------------------------- LAR.75/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT. ---------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT. ---------------------- 1. K.M.PADMAVATHI AMMA, KIZHAKKEMMELASSERY, HOUSE, P.O.KAKKODI, PADINJATTUMMURI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. K.M.SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, KIZHAKKEMELASSERY HOUSE, P.O.KAKKODI, PADINHATTUMURI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. K.M.THANKAM, KIZHAKKUMELASSERY HOUSE, P.O.KAKKODI, PADINHATTUMMURI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. THE SECRETARY, CALICUT CORPORATION. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R1 TO 3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. Nos. 869, 871, 891, 1275, 1492 & 1507 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T These appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Vengeri Village for the purpose of construction of road from Thadampattuthazham to Florican Hill pursuant to a notification under section 4(1) dated 14-8- 1997. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.7875/- per cent on the basis of the basis document which is not produced in the case. The court relying on Ext.A1 judgment to a certain extent and Ext.A2 sale deed and the oral testimony of AW-1 and Ext.X-1 commissioner's report would refix the land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent. I have heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and those of Sri.Thomas Antony Kallanpally who appeared for the respondent in some of the cases. I was taken by the learned counsel extensively through the impugned judgment. It is seen that the learned Subordinate Judge has given excellent reasons for holding that the land value fixed by the awarding officer was not the correct land value of the properties at the relevant time. In fact the basis document was not put in evidence. The advocate commissioner who had bared the property covered by the basis document and the acquired property reported that the acquired LAA. N0. 869/05 etc. -2- property was superior in as much as the same was having road frontage and had nearness to the main thoroughfare in the locality while the basis property was having frontage of just a footpath. It was also noticed by the court below that the basis document was one executed between direct sisters and it was rightly found that the correct market value is not reflected in the basis document. Ext.A1 was judgment of the reference court in another land acquisition reference case in an acquisition covered by a section 4(1) notification which was just two-three months prior to the notification in this case. The learned Judge rightly held that Ext.A1 property was not comparable to the acquired properties in this case since Ext.A1 properties were having direct frontage of the main road. Though complete reliance was not placed on Ext.A1 the court below did rely on Ext.A1 to understand as to what was the rate of market value near to Thadampattuthazham town, the town situated near to the acquired properties. Noticing that A1 property was having more potential value in view of its main road frontage unlike the acquired property which was having frontage of metal road only what the court below did was to make a 50% cut on the value fixed as per Ext.A1 and to fix the land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent. The approach of the learned LAA. N0. 869/05 etc. -3- Subordinate Judge in my opinion was reasonable. It should be noticed further that it is a well reasoned judgment which has been written by the learned Subordinate Judge. The oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence available in the case has been analysed threadbare and the learned Subordinate Judge in my opinion has been able to determine the market value of the property at the relevant time from the point of view of a willing seller and a willing buyer. It is brought to my notice that Ext.A1 has attained finality in the sense that the various appeals preferred by the Government against Ext.A1 have been dismissed. Copies of judgments in LAA. Nos. 863 & 937 of 2004, 458, 471, 615, 786 & 1013 of 2005, 897 of 2005 and 1301 of 2003 cases pertaining to nearby properties have also been made available . For all these reasons these appeals fail and will stand dismissed. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/ LAA. N0. 869/05 etc. -4-