IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 LA.App..No. 486 of 2011() -------------------------------- LAR.184/2007 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: --------------------------------------- RADHA, KUTTIYIL THEKKATHIL PERINGALA, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.NAVA VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) RAILWAYS, KAYAMKULAM-690 502. 2. SOUTHERN RAILWAY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN, SR.SC.,RAILWAYS FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.T. JOSEPHINE FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 854 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DS PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A. Nos.486 of 2011 & 854 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. These appeals are preferred by the claimants. The properties under acquisition were wet lands and reclaimed lands in Kayamkulam village situated within the area of Kayamkulam Municipality. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification published on 06.10.2004 for the purpose of Railways. For the wet lands, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of `9373/- per Are. For the reclaimed land, he awarded land value at the rate of `17,448/- per Are. Though these appeals pertain to separate awards passed by the Reference Courts, we are considering all these appeals together as issues raised are identical and the properties involved were similar. In L.A.R No. 168 of 2007 corresponding to L.A.A No.854 of 2010, relevance was placed by the appellant/claimant on Ext.A1 document. Ext. A1 was a pre notification document executed more than two years prior to Section 4(1) Notification. Ext.A1 pertains to 7.10 Are of dry land (Original dry land) and the same reflected the land value at `2,57,042/- per Are. In L.A.R. No. 184 of 2007 pertaining to L.A.A No. 486 of 2011 the documents relied on by the appellant/ claimant was L.A.A. . Nos. 486/2011 & 854/2010. -:2:- Ext.A1 deed dated 05.12.2003 which was ten months prior to Section 4(1) Notification. That document also pertains to dry lands and the same reflected a land value of `58,162/- per Are. The learned Subordinate Judge in these two cases did not become inclined to place reliance on the document produced by the appellants. He discarded the documents stating reasons and proceeded to re-fix the land value doing some guess work based on the other evidence available on record. It was also taken note of by the learned Subordinate Judge that the basis document was not at all comparable and reflected only much lesser than the correct market value. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned awards re-fixed the value of reclaimed lands at the rate of `50,000/- per Are and that of wet lands at `15,000/- per Are. In these appeals the claims are that the market value re-fixed are grossly inadequate. It is urged that the document produced by the parties should have been relied on and the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for discrimination are not valid. 2. We heard the submissions of Adv. Shri. S. Mohanan, the learned counsel for the appellant in L.A.A No. 854 of 2010 and Adv. Shri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, the learned counsel for the appellant in L.A.A. No. 486 of 2011. We also heard the submissions of Shri. M.C. Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for Railways. All the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel were L.A.A. . Nos. 486/2011 & 854/2010. -:3:- supported by Smt. T.T. Josephine. The argument of the learned Standing Counsel was that the courts below should not have relied on the documents produced by the appellants. The argument particularly raised by Adv. Shri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil was that Ext.A1 produced by his client is not the document which reflects the correct market value of the land whereas Ext.A1 produced by the appellant in L.A.A. No. 854 of 2010 reflects the correct market value of the dry lands in the locality. In Appeal No.854 of 2010, the claim is limited to `2,00,000/- per Are for reclaimed land and `1,00,000/- per Are for wet lands. In Appeal No. 486 of 2011, the claim is for `80,000/- per Are for reclaimed land and `35,000/- per Are for wet lands. According to the learned counsel for the Railways and the learned Government Pleader what is awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge is more than sufficient. The documents produced by the appellant were not at all relevant as they pertain to the original dry lands. The reclaimed land is far inferior to the original dry lands. Hence the value of original dry lands cannot be relied for determining the value of reclaimed lands. 3. We made a denovo reappraisal of the evidence on record particularly the documents which are marked as Ext.A1 in the two cases. We are convinced that the value fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge for both the wet lands as well as the reclaimed lands involved in this appeal is below the correct market value of L.A.A. . Nos. 486/2011 & 854/2010. -:4:- those properties at the relevant time. True, Ext.A1 in these two cases pertains to original dry lands and the value of original dry lands will never be fetched by reclaimed lands which are to be considered as inferior to the original dry lands. At the same time, we are of the view that there must be some correlation between the value of original dry lands and reclaimed lands situated within a local area. There is material in these cases to hold that the distance between these document properties and the properties under acquisition was not much. According to us, some guidance is given by these documents regarding the correct value. The two documents could have been relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge for fixing the market value of the land. Placing some reliance on those two documents and of course on the oral evidence which was relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge and doing some guess work which is inevitable in all land acquisition cases while fixing the market value, we are of the view that the correct market value of the reclaimed lands involved in these cases will not be less than `60,000/- per Are. We are of the view that the correct market value of the wet lands involved in these cases will not be less than `30,000/- per Are. We allow these appeals and re-fixed the value at the rate of `60,000/- per Are for reclaimed lands and that of wet lands at the rate of `30,000/- per Are. Both the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, L.A.A. . Nos. 486/2011 & 854/2010. -:5:- while decree is drafted in L.A.A No. 854 of 2010, there should be due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court while allowing C.M. Application No. 1292 of 2010. Similarly while decree is drafted in L.A.A. No. 486 of 2011, there should be due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court in C.M. Application 1103 of 2011. The decree copies will be issued to the respective appellants only after ensuring that those conditions have been complied with in full and the balance court fee payable on the appeal memoranda are remitted. The parties are directed to suffer the respective costs in these appeals. sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. rv L.A.A. . Nos. 486/2011 & 854/2010. -:6:-