IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 1065 of 2004() ----------------------------------------- LAR 35/2002 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- ABDUL KHADAR, S/O.ABDU MUSALIAR, CHEVAMPURAKKAL, BISMI HOUSE, P.O.VENGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN MR.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, R.B.D.C., KOCHI. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.BENNY VARGHESE R2 BY MR.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, (SR. ADV.)SC,RBDCK THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... L..A.A.No.1065 OF 2004 ............................................. Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award passed by the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Koyilandy in LAR.No.35/2002. 2.94 cents of land belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of construction of a railway bridge and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the property at Rs.10,210/= per cent which was enhanced by the Land Acquisition Court to Rs.15,000/= making a difference of Rs.4,790/= per cent. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant would strongly contend before me that the court went wrong in not accepting Ext.A1 document whereby two cents of property nearby was purchased for a consideration of Rs.1,20,000/= per cent on 30.3.2000. The Land Acquisition Court considered the said contention and held that the said property is having a : 2 : L.A.A.No.1065 OF 2004 negligible extent of 2 cents and the seller of the property is a relative of the claimant and that the document was created only for the purpose of getting higher compensation. It has to be stated that the said document cannot be relied upon for the purpose of arriving at a figure for the reason that it covers only an extent of 2 cents and it has been sold to a political party for the purpose of constructing an office and therefore that shall not be a ground to fix the value at that rate. But the fact remains that the land acquired is having road access to National Highway 17. The Government land by virtue of which amount has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was done in 1997. The fact that the road accessibility made the Land Acquisition Officer to enhance the compensation by Rs.20,000/=. 3. I feel the approach is not proper because three years had lapsed by the time the property was acquired and the land value in Kerala was gone up to a considerable extent within a short span of time. Therefore, though a fabulous value like Rs.1,20,000/= or Rs.60,000/= per cent cannot be granted, I think a reasonable amount has to be : 3 : L.A.A.No.1065 OF 2004 granted. The land acquisition court itself has granted Rs.15,000/= per cent. The learned counsel for the appellant had highlighted the importance of the area. So taking into consideration all these aspects, though the claim of Rs.50,000/= per cent cannot be granted, it will be just and reasonable to fix 125% of the land value which was purchased by the Government in the year 1997. That percentage value is Rs.8,532/= and when 125% of the same is granted it will come to an additional compensation of Rs.10,665/= that is a total of Rs.19,197/= or in other words the enhanced land value per cent would be Rs.4,197/= in this case. 4. Therefore, the land acquisition appeal is partly allowed and the land value is fixed at Rs.19,197/= per cent. The claimant is entitled to all the benefits conferred on him by the Land Acquisition Court on this amount. The balance court fee be paid within one week before the issuance of a certified copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : L.A.A.No.1065 OF 2004 : 5 : L.A.A.No.1065 OF 2004