IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 LA.App..No. 620 of 2008(D) -------------------------- LAR.80/2001 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS NO. 1 IN LAR 80/2001 ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MAVELIKKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS AND ADDL. RESPONDENT 2 IN LAR 80/01 ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.SARDHAN, KARUNALAYAM, PALLIPPATTU MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA. 2. SMT.MAHILAMANI, KARUNALAYAM, PALLIPPATTU MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA. 3. DIRECTOR, INLAND WATER WAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY S.DANDAPAT. BY // THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 620 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Haurn-Ul-Rashid, J. The State of Kerala is the appellant. The decree and judgment dated 25.1.2007 in L.A.R. No.80 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara granting enhanced compensation is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The extent of land acquired is 46.50 Ares. Acquisition is for the purpose of widening National Waterways No.III. Section 4(1) notification was published on 30.5.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.20,316/- per Are. The reference court by the impugned judgment refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.31,777/- per Are. The appellant contended before us that the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just, proper and reasonable and that the reference court ought not to have enhanced the land value. The appellant further contended that the reference court went wrong in placing reliance on Ext.A1 sale deed as the property covered by Ext.A1 cannot be L.A.A.NO.620/2008 2 compared with that of the acquired land and also for the reason that there is no positive evidence adduced by the claimants to show that the properties are similar and similarly situated. 3. The first claimant was examined as AW.1. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of the sale deed. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the commission report and mahazar which were relied on by the claimants in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. The locational importance of the acquired land and its nearness to many important public and commercial institutions is spoken to by the claimants and was dealt with by the reference court in detail in paragraph 14 of the judgment. The importance of the locality as spoken to by AW.1 is corroborated in Ext.C1 (a) mahazar. The reference court noticed the fact that the acquired land is fairly a bigger plot of 46.50 Ares whereas the extent of the land covered by Ext.A1 is only 12.05 Ares for which land value was fixed at Rs.48,780/- per Are. On a comparison of both the properties, the reference court rightly held that the land involved in Ext.A1 sale deed has much more residential, commercial and industrial importance and potentialities than the acquired land. At the same time, taking into account all the attending circumstances including the nature, lie, locational importance and date of Section 4(1) notification of the acquired land, the reference court held that L.A.A.NO.620/2008 3 65% of the land value in Ext.A1 sale deed can be fixed as value of the acquired land. The land value of the acquired land was thus refixed as Rs.31,770/- per Are. The reference court also fixed an amount of Rs.50,000/- as value of improvements, on proper evidence available on record. We find that no grounds are made out to take a different view from the view taken by the reference court. We agree with the reasoning and findings of the reference court. In the result, the appeal is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ L.A.A.NO.620/2008 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A. NO.620/2008 JUDGMENT 3RD APRIL, 2008