IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 1556 of 2009(D) --------------------------- LAR.10/2005 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: --------------------------- D.VIJAYAN, MAHESH GIRI, T.C.14/2167, ORUVATHILKOTTA, ANAYARA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH DIVISION, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.R.SHYAM KUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vk PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- L.A.A No.1556 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J Claimant is the appellant. His property in Petta Village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 17.4.2002 for the purpose of expansion of Venpalavattom Junction. He was awarded land value at Rs.69,505/- per are. Before the reference court he relied mainly on Annexure A1 sale deed and his own evidence as AW1. Annexure A1 was a sale deed of the year 1996 reflecting the land value of Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. The claim of the appellant was for Rs.4,94,000/- per are. (Rs.2 lakhs per cent). The learned subordinate judge has observed in his judgment that the appellant's claim cannot be described as an exorbitant one. The court also found that Annexure A1 document had some relevance. At the same time the court became inclined to re-fix the market value only at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per are. The main argument advanced before us by Smt.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the appellant was that the court below having found that the if appellant's claim is reasonable it should have allowed the above claim in full. 2. Mr.C.R.Shyam Kumar, the learned Senior Government L.A.A No.1556 of 2009 2 Pleader submitted that it is not correct to say that the learned subordinate judge has found that the appellant's claim is reasonable. What is stated by the sub judge is only that the appellant's claim for Rs.2 lakhs per cent cannot be branded as highly exorbitant. We have considered the rival submissions. We have appreciated the evidence particularly Annexure A1. We notice that more than five years have passed after Annexure A1 was executed and till date of promulgation of Section 4(1) notification, we are of the view that taking into the passage of time the learned subordinate judge could have granted more than amount what is actually he awarded. We are inclined to re- fix the market value of the land at Rs.4,10,000/-. The appeal is allowed and the market value of the land is refixed as Rs.4,10,000/- per are. The claimant will be entitled for statutory benefits. However, while the decree is drafted we have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court in his order in C.M.A No.2153/2009. It will be ensured that the cost ordered has been paid and the and full court fee of Rs.13,900/- is remitted. The appeal is allowed, however without any order as to the costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL ab JUDGE L.A.A No.1556 of 2009 3 ab