IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 393 of 2000(C) & C.O. NO.117/2005 -------------------------- LAR.164/1987 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS 2 & 3 IN THE LAR: ---------------------------------------- 1. RAJANGOM, FOUZIDAR HOUSE, SOUTH STREET, FORT, TRIVANDURM. 2. SUBRAMANYAN, FOUZIDAR HOUSE, SOUTH STREET, FORT TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN LAR : --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ANANTHARAMAKRISHNA IYER, TC 34/1575, FORT, SOUTH STREET, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. GOPALAN SOMAN, GURUDEVA SADANAM PATTOM, MADATHUVILAKOM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRURM. ADDL.R4. L.S.SIBU, T.C. 3/2243, GURUDEV SREE, PATTOM TRIVANDRUM - 695 004. (ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.4059/2005 DATED 13/3/06) ADV. SRI.P.S.RAMESH KUMAR FOR R3 SMT.ANNAMMA ABRAHAM FOR R3 SRI.T.K.ABRAHAM FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR ADDL.R4 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT TODAY ALSO THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION . HENCE, THE APPEAL AND CORSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. 29/6/2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal is preferred by the claimant Nos.2 and 3 and their grievance is that adequate compensation has not been awarded by the Reference Court for their properties which were acquired. The properties were in Pattom village and the acquisition was pursuant to relevant Section 4(1) notification published on 31/05/1983, for the purposes of State Planning Board. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.19,179/- per Are corresponding to Rs.7761/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, the appellants relied on Exts.A1 to A8. Ext.A1 was the judgment of the same court in a L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -2- case pertaining to another acquisition, pursuant to notifications some two years prior to the present Section 4(1) notification. The properties in Ext.A1 were also in Pattom village and under Ext.A1 a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- per Are corresponding to Rs.50,586/- per cent was awarded by the Reference Court. Ext.A3 was copy of sale deed dt.17/04/1982 in respect of a plot of 3 cents in extent and revealed a land value of Rs.16,000/-. Ext.A4 was copy of sale deed dt.16/04/82 and was in respect of plot of 4.45 cents in extent and the same revealed land value of Rs.16,000/- per cent itself. Ext.A5 and Ext.A7 were sale deeds dt.04/12/1980 in respect of plots of 3 cents each and those documents also revealed land value of Rs.16,000/- per cent only. Ext.A6 and Ext.A8 were post notification documents revealing a higher land L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -3- value. Those documents were rejected in our opinion rightly by the learned Subordinate Judge as post notification documents. The court below did not become inclined to place any reliance on Ext.A1 though it had come out in evidence that Ext.A1 property was situated at a distance of only one kilometre from the properties under acquisition. The evidence was also to the effect that Ext.A1 property as well as the acquired properties enjoyed frontage of National Highway. The reasons stated by the court below for not relying on Ext.A1 was that the value revealed by Ext.A1 is Rs.1,25,000/- per Are corresponding to Rs.50586/- per cent and even according to the statement filed by the claimants 2 and 3 the value of their properties is Rs.25,000/- per cent. Therefore, on the reason that on the admission L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -4- of the claimants, the property under acquisition is inferior to Ext.A1 property, the learned Subordinate Judge excluded Ext.A1 completely from consideration. Ultimately what the learned Judge did was to rely on Ext.A3, A4, A5 and A7 and also the Commissioner's Report Ext.C1 which was to the effect that the properties were situated in one of the most important areas of Thiruvananthapuram city and to arrive at the conclusion that the correct market value of the property at the relevant time is Rs.50,200/- per Are. The learned Judge was not prepared to award land value at that rate for the properties under acquisition in view of the smallness of the plots covered by the documents relied on. According to the learned Judge, the properties under acquisition was fairly a large plot extending to 1 acre and 27 cents and therefore, L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -5- deduction to the tune of 20% has to be made on the value of Rs.50,200/- per Are and ultimately would re- fix land value of the properties under acquisition at Rs.40,168/- per Are corresponding to Rs.16250/-per Cent. It is being aggrieved by that decision that the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 2. We have heard submissions of Sri.Krishna Prasad N., on behalf of Sri.K.L.Narasimhan, the learned counsel for the appellants and those of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, learned Senior Government Pleader for the Government. Sri.P.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for claimant No.4 who has lodged memorandum of cross objections, did not resist the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants to the extent they pertained to the correct market value to be awarded for the lands in question. L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -6- 3. The impugned judgment was assailed very strongly by the learned counsel for the appellants. According to him, the court below was not at all justified in completely discarding Ext.A1 from consideration. The probative value of Ext.A1 was beyond dispute. The distance between the two properties was just one kilometre, and Ext.A1 property and the property under acquisition enjoyed similar advantages. Even if the court below found it difficult to award the value reflected in Ext.A1 for the reason that the said value is higher than the value claimed, the court below could have relied on Ext.A1 itself and awarded Rs.25,000/- per cent itself, the amount claimed. 4. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the court below was not justified in deducting 20% on L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -7- the reason that the property under acquisition is a large plot. The Court below missed the crucial aspect that the property under acquisition belonged to two individuals and that as far as one individual is concerned the extent was only 30 cents and odd. The counsel argued that at any rate, the properties under acquisition were developed plots and hence, deductions towards development charges was not justified. 5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant were stiffly resisted by Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, Senior Government Pleader. She would support the impugned judgment on the various reasons stated in the judgment. She, however would fairly submit that towards the cut of 20% made on the value of Rs.50,200/- per Are arrived at by the learned L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -8- Subordinate Judge, was not justified. 6. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was not at all justified in rejecting Ext.A1 judgment altogether. Ext.A1 was a court judgment in respect of acquisition of properties in the same village two years earlier. Ext.A1 properties as well as the properties under acquisition were enjoying the frontage of the very same National Highway. If additions are made for the passage of two years time between the dates of Section 4(1) notification in Ext.A1 as well as in the present case, it will be seen that the value as per Ext.A1 will be much more than the present value fixed as per Ext.A1 which is Rs.1,25,000/- per Are. For the purpose of this appeal, however, we are treating the L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -9- value reflected in Ext.A1 as the value of Ext.A1 property as on the date of the notification in this case also. Even if we accept that there is some merit in the submission of the Senior Government Pleader that the properties in Ext.A1 was superior to the properties under Acquisition (a submission which is not supported by Ext.C1 or even on the learned Subordinate Judge's findings in the impugned judgment), then also, according to us, the value of the acquired property should have been at least 60% or 70% of the value revealed by Ext.A1. If it is 60%, the same should be Rs.75,000/- per Are and if it is 70% the same should be Rs.87,500/- per Are. But then, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader, Ext.A1 itself was in respect of a small plot extending to 2.24 Ares unlike the acquired property which were fairly L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -10- large plots. 7. Taking all the plus and minus points of the acquired property and the properties covered by Ext.A1 into account and taking into account the crucial circumstance that the claim of the appellants before the Land Acquisition Officer as well as before the Reference Court only for Rs.25,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs.61,775/- per Are, we are of the view that the market value of the property under acquisition can be fairly fixed at Rs.60,000/- per Are corresponding to Rs.24,281/- per cent. 8. Another grievance voiced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been awarded to the appellants/claimants. This grievance is L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -11- genuine and has to be redressed in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India (2001(3) KLT 489 (SC) and subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court. 9. The result of this appeal accordingly, is as follows:- 1) The appeal is allowed. 2) Correct market value of the property under acquisition is re-fixed at Rs.60,000/- per Are corresponding to Rs.24,281/- per cent. 10. It is declared that the appellants are entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23 (2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of our re-fixation of the land value done under this judgment. L. A. A. No.393 of 2000 -12- 11. Appeal is thus allowed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-