IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 357 of 2006(D) ---------------------------------------- LAR.58/2004 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ------------------------------------ PRESIDENT, N.S.S PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) GENERAL, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER ATHORITY, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.T.K. MOHANAN. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO.358 OF 2006 AND CONNECTED CASES,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ L.A.A. Nos.357, 358, 359, 413 & 416 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The President of the Nair Service Society, the claimant before the reference court, is the appellant in all these cases. Properties situated in different surveys of Edappally South Village belonging to the N.S.S. was acquired for the purpose of Adhoc Augmentation to Kochi Water Supply Scheme adjacent to the existing Pipeline Road. The LA Officer categorised the properties into various categories. Included in category-1 were reclaimed wet land having frontage of Pipeline Road. For these lands the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,32,500/- per Are. Included in category-2 were wet lands having frontage of Pipeline Road. For these lands the LA Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,25,800/- per Are. Before the reference court, the L.A.A.357, 358, 359, 413 & 416 of 2006 2 claimants relied mostly on Exts.A1 and A2 and also on the oral evidence of AW1, a representative of the claimant. Exts.A1 and A2 were both documents executed by one and the same person and the centage value in those documents executed some four or five months prior to Section 4(1) notification was at Rs.1 lakh per cent. Learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place reliance on Ext.A1 for the reason that property in Ext.A1 was pucca dry land unlike the property in categories 1 and 2 covered by acquisition. What the learned Subordinate Judge ultimately did was to enhance the land value by 20% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer and to re-fix the value of properties in category-1 at Rs.1,56,600/- per Are and the properties in category-2 at Rs.1,48,800/- per Are. 2. In these appeals the appellants have raised various grounds assailing the judgments of the reference court. It is urged that the reference court should have L.A.A.357, 358, 359, 413 & 416 of 2006 3 relied on Exts.A1 and A2. It is urged that A1 and A2 do not show the value actually paid and received, but those documents are undervalued for the purpose of saving stamp duty. 3. Sri.K.R.Mohanan, learned counsel for the appellants addressed arguments before us based on the various grounds in the memoranda of appeal. Mr. Mohanan submitted that properties under acquisition were situated very near to many an important junction and in Cochin City. He pointed out that the Oberon Mall has come up at a point very near to the properties under acquisition. The commercial importance and potentialities of the land is beyond dispute, so submitted Mr.Mohanan. According to him, Ext.A1 and A2 are undervalued documents. He requested that the appeals be allowed in full and market value be re-fixed at the rates claimed in the appeals which amounts to Rs.96,500/- per cent. L.A.A.357, 358, 359, 413 & 416 of 2006 4 4. We have very anxiously considered rival submissions addressed at the bar. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have also considered those items of evidence particularly Exts.A1 and A2 to which our attention was drawn by Mr.Mohanan. We are in a position to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having decided not to award the full value reflected in Exts.A1 and A2. There was considerable quality difference between the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 and properties covered by acquisition. Even the properties in category- 1 were reclaimed wet lands whereas the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 were original dry lands. But we notice that there was absolutely no counter evidence adduced by the Government or the requisitioning authority to the evidence adduced by the claimants. Thus the weight of evidence was solely in favour of claimants. We feel that the learned Subordinate Judge L.A.A.357, 358, 359, 413 & 416 of 2006 5 was a little miserly on fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition. According to us, based on Exts.A1 and A2 itself and taking into account superiority of properties involved in Exts.A1 and A2 over the properties under acquisition some more enhancement could have been granted. On re-appreciating the evidence on record, which, as already stated, is on the side of the claimants only, we are inclined to re-fix the market value of the lands in category-1 at Rs.72,390/- per cent corresponding to Rs.1,78,880/- per Are. Similarly we re-fix the value of wet lands having Pipeline Road frontage at Rs.68,730/- per cent corresponding to Rs.1,69,830/- per Are. All the appeals are allowed on the basis of the above re-fixation. For all properties for which the L.A. Court awarded Rs.1,56,600/- per Are, the parties will be eligible for re-fixed land value of Rs.1,78,880/- per Are and for all properties for which the L.A. Court awarded Rs.1,48,800/- per Are, the parties will L.A.A.357, 358, 359, 413 & 416 of 2006 6 be eligible for re-fixed land value of Rs.1,69,830/- per Are. The claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb