IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 1794 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.65/2000 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. POTTIVELU, T.C.37/744, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ( 2. KUTTALAM, T.C. 37/744, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.) ( DIED) 3. LEKSHMANAN, T.C.37/744, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SANTHAKUMARI M., T.C.36/1494, KOTHUVAL THERUVU, ATTUKULANGARA. ADDL.R5. K.POTTIVELU, T.C.39/1244(1) KRA-20 ATTAKULANGARA BYPASS ROAD, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R6. K.SAKTHIVEL, T.C.39/1244(1) KRA-20 ATTAKULANGARA BYPASS ROAD, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R7. J.SUMATHI, W/O.R.JAYAKUMAR, T.C.39/1775, NO.88 YAMUNA NAGAR IIIRD STREET, KURIYATHY, MANACAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R8 .S.RAJAM, W/O.S.SUBRAMANIYAM, T.C.41/1804, KOLLAVILAKKATHU VEEDU, KURIYATHY, MANACAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R9. K.LAKSHMANAN, T.C.39/1244 (1) KRA -20 ATTAKULANGARA BYPASS ROAD, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM. R10. K.PRATHAPAN, T.C.39/1244 (1) KRA-20 ATTAKULANGARA BYPASS ROAD, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM. (ADDL.R5 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. 2806/2009 DATED 11/8/2009). ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1794 of 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. As agreed to by both sides, we have taken up the appeal for hearing. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader for the appellant and those of Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudhir, learned counsel for the respondents claimants. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Chalai bypass from Attakulangara – Killippalam junction pursuant to relevant section 4 (1) notification published on 18/9/1992. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.69,342/- per Are. The reference court purporting to rely on Ext.A2 judgment, refixed the land value at Rs.15,00,000/- per Are. Award of the reference court is assailed on various grounds and we find some merits in the grounds raised. It was relying on Ext.A2, that the learned sub Judge refixed the land value at the rate under the impugned judgment. But, Ext.A2 was obviously in an acquisition pursuant to notification five years subsequent. Even according to the LAA.No.1794/2007 2 learned Sub Judge, Ext.A2 property was superior to the property under acquisition. Ext.A1 was another document put in evidence by the claimant. Even on going by Ext.A2, the value of the acquired property cannot more than Rs.1,00,000/- per Are when one gives additions/deductions for relevant factors. According to us, since the property covered by Ext.A2 is town property, deduction at the rate of 10% can be rightly made on account of the passage of five years. So also deduction at minimum rate of 20% has to be made on account of the superiority of the property covered by Ext.A2. Making deduction that way and giving some additions due to certain special advantages enjoyed by the property under acquisition, we are of the view that the market value of the property under acquisition can be refixed at Rs. 7,00,000/- per Are. 2. Accordingly, the appeal will stand allowed. We set aside the judgment under appeal and we refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.7,00,000/- per Are. It is needless to mention that the respondents claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits under section 23(2) 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation LAA.No.1794/2007 3 which becomes admissible to the claimants by virtue of our refixation of the compensation. Parties are directed to suffer their costs in this appeal. As regards the cost on the trial side, which has been granted to the respondents, we do not propose to interfere since we are told that certain amounts have already been paid to the respondents pursuant to an order passed in this appeal. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk