IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 CO.No. 135 of 2004() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.260/2004 .................... CROSS OBJECTORS -RESPONDENT(S) 1 & 2: ---------------------------------------------- 1. BABY MATHEW, ULLATTIL HOUSE, MANJOOR VILLAGE. 2. OUSEPH MATHAI, KAMIVELIL, PARAMBRAM KARA, KADUTHURUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN RESPONDENTS-APPELLANT & R3 1. STATE OF KERALA 2. THE MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANJOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN FOR R1 THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ CO. No. 135 of 2004 in LAA. No. 260 of 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This memorandum of cross objection is lodged by the claimants in LAA. No. 260 of 2004 which the Government had preferred against the award of the reference court. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Kothanalloor Village for the expansion of Kuruppumthara Market pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 1-2-1989. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5483/- per Are. The reference court on the basis of the evidence which came on record re-fixed the land value at Rs.24,700/- oper Are corresponding to Rs.10,000/- per cent. By judgment dated 14-1-2009 another Division Bench of this Court, to which one among us (PCK(J) was also party dismissed the appeal preferred by the Government. While doing so, this court even observed that there may be justification for granting CO.135/04 - 2 - enhancement to the claimants. Sri. Mathew John, learned counsel for the cross objector would draw our attention to the judgment in the appeal preferred by the Government and request that the compensation fixed under the impugned award be re-fixed. He referred to Ext.A3 which was a common judgment in LAA. Nos. 70 and 74 of 1991. According to him, if proportionate increase is given to the appellants on the basis of Ext.A3, there is every justification for allowing the cross objections in full, i.e., by re-fixing the market value of the land at Rs.20,000/- per cent. Mr.Mathew submitted that unlike the properties covered by Ext.A3, the property under acquisition here, was enjoying frontage not only of Kottayam – Ernakulam main road but also of the Panchayat road. 2. Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned Senior Govt. Pleader resisting the submissions of Mr. Mathew John would submit that it is not the correct ratio that was fixed by the awarding CO.135/04 - 3 - officer between the value of the various categories of properties acquired. Hence according to him, it will not be proper to give proportionate increase based on Ext.A3. We find merit in the above submission of the learned Govt. Pleader. At the same time, we are of the considered view that the court below was not justified in ignoring Ext.A3. According to us, Ext.A3 being in respect of the very same acquisition though in respect of other categories of land, had considerable probative value and should have been taken into account by the learned Sub Judge. We re-appreciate Ext.A3. Based on Ext.A3 and taking into account the circumstance that the property under acquisition was enjoying frontage of not only the main road but also of the Panchayat road re-fix the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.16,500/- per cent. 3. Cross objections is allowed to the above extent. The cross objectors will be entitled for all statutory benefits CO.135/04 - 4 - on the total compensation admissible under section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-