IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 LA.App..No. 1035 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.108/2001 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT IN THE LAR -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA (THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A.N.H.)KESAVADASAPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS IN THE LAR --------------------------------- 1. MERCY P. MEENACHERI,W/O. ANOTNY, T.C.2/119,ELAVATHINKAL HOUSE, MOSEQUE LANE, PATTOM. 2. MINI ANTONY OF T.C. 2/119, ELAVATHINKAL HOUSE, MOSEQUE LANE, PATTOM. 3. SONY ANTONY, T.C. 2/119, ELAVANTHINKAL HOUSE,MOSEQUE LANE, PATTOM. 4. SOBI ANTONY, OF T.C. 2/119, ELAVATHINKAL HOUSE, MOSEQUE LANE, PATTOM. 5. SIBI ANTONY, OF T.C. 2/119, ELAVATHINKAL HOUSE, MOSQUE LANE, PATTOM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, ALONG WITH LAA 1192/07, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.1035 & 1192 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 30th January, 2008. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. C.M.Appln.Nos.1199/07 in LAA 1035/07 & 1370/07 in LAA 1192/07: Delay condoned. These are appeals filed by the State aggrieved by the fixation of land value by the reference court-First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in LAR Nos.108 and 122 of 2001 respectively. The acquisition is for the purpose of construction of Plamood Bridge across Pattom thodu. Section 4(1) notification was published on 20.8.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs.2,15,393/- per Are and the reference court refixed the same at Rs.4 lakhs per Are. The extents involved in these cases are very small, in the former it is one Are and in the latter, 0.50 Ares. 2. As far as the property LAR 122/01 is concerned, it is seen that the reference court has mainly relied on Ext.A1 document produced by the claimant. The claimant also tendered evidence as AW1. There was no evidence for the respondents. On a detailed discussion on the group sketch, note to award, LAA NOS.1035 & 1192/07 2 mahazar and valuation statement, the reference court has rightly come to the conclusion that the acquired property has no similarity with the property covered by the basic document. The property covered by the basic document was lying at 2 meters lower than the road level. Quite a few important institutions were lying near to the acquired property and hence the same has the potential for being used as commercial plot, whereas such an importance was not available for the property covered by the basic document. The property covered by Ext.A1 is situated on the opposite side of Kedaram near Kesavadasapuram Junction. True, there was a shop building at the time of transaction. But the building was roofed with tin sheets only. The Land Acquisition Officer estimated its value as Rs.70,000/- and the land was valued at Rs.4,30,000/- per Are. The only dissimilarity of the acquired property with that of Ext.A1 property, even according to the Land Acquisition Officer is that in the property covered by Ext.A1, there was a shop room whereas there was none in the acquired property. However, the reference court, on a comparison of the acquired property with the property covered by Ext.A1, rightly came to the conclusion that though there is no LAA NOS.1035 & 1192/07 3 shop as such in the acquired property, the same is suitable, and having the potential for a shop building and situated in an equally important location as that of the property covered by Ext.A1. However, since Ext.A1 is situated half-a-kilometer away from the acquired land, the reference court made a reduction in land value and fixed the value at Rs.4 lakhs per Are. 3. As far as the property covered by LAR 108/01 is concerned, the reference court has placed reliance mainly on Ext.A2 document. Ext.A2 document has in fact been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, but the same was rejected on the only ground that the vendee had purchased the said plot for an attractive price for the construction of a shopping complex. However, it was found that Ext.A2 land is situated on the opposite side of Kedaram complex near Kesavadasapuram junction and adjacent to eastern side of Kesavadasapuram-Pattom N.H.47 road. That is a commercially important place. Even according to the Land Acquisition Officer, the land value for the property covered by Ext.A2 document would be Rs.4,30,000/-. On a comparison with the properties covered by Ext.A2 and Ext.R1, the reference court rightly found that the property covered by Ext.A2 LAA NOS.1035 & 1192/07 4 and the acquired property are similar and similarly situated and there was no basis for the stand taken by the Land Acquisition Officer that the purchase was made by the vendee for a fancy price. Since the reference court had already found, and rightly too, that Ext.R1 basic document had no similarity and comparability with the acquired land, the court on an evaluation of the evidence available on record and on comparison of the acquired property with the property covered by Ext.A2, and also taking note of the potential of the plot for being used as a commercial plot, made an appropriate reduction in the land value, from the value of the property covered by Ext.A2, in view of the distance between the acquired property and Ext.A2, and fixed the land value at Rs.4 lakhs per Are. The fixation thus made by the reference court being based on the evidence available on record, and in the absence of any evidence to discredit the same, we are of the view that the fixation thus made by the reference court for similar extents of lands situated in commercially important areas, cannot be said to be in any way unreasonable, unjust or excessive. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. The interlocutory LAA NOS.1035 & 1192/07 5 applications for stay are also dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NOs.1035 & 1192 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 30th January, 2008.