IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 149 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------- [LAR.NO.96/2001 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, QUILANDY] .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY, KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS A TO G & 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PADMINI, NADELAKANDY, PANTHALAYANI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RADHA SURENDRAN – 673 305. 2. SATHI, NADELAKANDY, PANTHALAYANI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, RADHA SURENDRAN – 673 305. 3. RADHA, NADELAKANDY, PANTHALAYANI – 673 305. 4. SANTHA, NADELAKANDY, PANTHALAYANI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RADHA SURENDRAN – 673 305. 5. SHARMA, NADELAKANDY, PANTHALAYANI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATORNEY HOLDER RADHA SURENDRAN – 673 305. L.A.A. NO.149/2011-B: 6. SHARSHAD, NADELAKANDY, PANTHALAYANI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RADHA SURENDRAN – 673 305. 7. SHERJITH, NADELAKANDY, PANTHALAYANI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RADHA SURENDRAN – 673 305. 8. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOYILANDY – 673 305. R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.T. JOSEPHINA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, ALONG WITH L.A.A NO. 769 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.769 of 2010 & 149 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this, the 5th day of July 2011 Judgment Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The requisitioning authority – Koyilandy Municipality is in appeal. The acquisition was of land in Panthalayani village. The purpose of the acquisition, which was pursuant to S.4(1) notification published on 04.11.1997, was the construction of a bus-stand for the municipality. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value @ Rs.9,929/- per cent. The reference court, in the first instance, on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, re-fixed the market value of land @ Rs.27,500/- per cent. The requisitioning authority preferred an appeal to this court. One of the points highlighted by the requisitioning authority was that in respect of the land situated nearby, acquired for the purpose of the construction of a market for the very same municipality, the value had been re-fixed @ Rs.19,000/-. Being impressed LAA Nos.769/10 & 149/11 2 by the above submission of the Municipality, this court interfered with the award of the reference court and remanded the L.A.R. back to the reference court. In the remand order, it was observed that the re-fixation shall be done by the reference court, taking into account all relevant inputs including the judgments of this court pertaining to acquisition for the purpose of establishment of market. 2. Today, we have heard the submissions of Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel for the appellant Municipality and Sri.Salil Narayanan, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent in L.A.A.No.769/10. While the learned counsel for the appellant described the rate re- fixed by the reference court as excessive, the learned counsel for the claimant Sri.Salil Narayanan would justify the same saying that the rate presently fixed cannot be said to be excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the properties acquired for the market, though situated very near to the properties under acquisition in this case, were superior to the properties LAA Nos.769/10 & 149/11 3 acquired in this case. He referred to the commissioner's report which shows that there is a level difference between the property acquired and the property remaining in the possession of the claimant in the present case. Mr.Salil Narayanan submitted that the level difference between the two properties is only because, after acquiring the present property, the Municipality has reclaimed the property for the purpose of construction of the bus-stand. 3. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have considered the remand order. We are convinced that the property under acquisition in the present case and the properties in the market acquisition cases were more or less similar in respect of quality and market value. This fact was noticed while passing the remand order also. The acquisition for the market was pursuant to the notification published in July 1995 whereas the present acquisition is two years and four months subsequently. Koyilandy is a municipal town and there is justification for making additions @ 13-15% LAA Nos.769/10 & 149/11 4 per year for passage of time. Making additions that way, the correct market value of the land under acquisition in this case will come to Rs.25,000/- per cent. Hence, allowing this appeal, we re-fix the market value of the land @ Rs.25,000/- percent. 4. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that this court granted negative approval to the rate of Rs.27,500/- awarded under the impugned awards by dismissing the Government appeals. We clarify that the Government appeals were dismissed, noticing the pendency of the present appeals. It is the present judgment which will rule regarding the market value of land. The appeal is allowed, however, without any order as to costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta LAA Nos.769/10 & 149/11 5 LAA Nos.769/10 & 149/11 6