IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 1169 of 2008() -------------------------- LAA.8/2005 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ------------------- PAUL VARGHESE, S/O.VARKEY, KOCHUKUDIYIL, MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY Sr.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.NO.1169 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant in L.A.R.No.8/05 on the files of the Muvattupuzha Sub Court. The reference case pertains to acquisition of an extent of 7.60 ares of garden land in Marady village pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 25/10/1993 for the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. The land acquisition officer had fixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 4754/- per Are before the reference court. The appellant placed reliance on Ext.A1 judgment. Ext.A1 judgment pertains to acquisition for the very same purpose and pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification. The land acquisition officer had treated Ext.A1 properties and the acquired properties belonging to the appellant similarly for the purposes of market value fixation. Nevertheless the learned Judge did not become inclined to award the enhancement which had been granted under Ext.A1 i.e. enhancement by Rs. 5346/-per Are to the acquired properties on the reason that the appellant has not adduced cogent L.A.A.No.1169/08 2 evidence in the form of commission report etc. to show that the properties in Ext.A1 and the acquired properties were similar and similarly situated. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.M.P.Prasanth, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader. Sri.Prasanth submitted that if instead of making a reference under section 18 to the court, the appellant had approached the land acquisition officer under section 28A relying on Ext.A1, the land acquisition officer would have been obliged to award the same land value which is awarded to the parties in Ext.A1 judgment. The learned Subordinate Judge in insisting that there must be similarity between the properties covered by Ext.A1 and the acquired properties in this case has missed the legislative objectives which underlie section 28A. Learned Government Pleader would resist the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, I find merit in the submissions of the counsel for the appellant. Ext.A1 admittedly pertains to acquisition for the very same purpose in the L.A.A.No.1169/08 3 same village and pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification. Even according to the land acquisition officer, Ext.A1 properties as well as the acquired properties were of the same value. If that is so, the probative value of Ext.A1 judgment in this case was considerable and in my opinion the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in insisting that the appellant should take out a commission for proving that the properties in Ext.A1 and the acquired properties are similarly situated. The legislative objective underlying section 28A is to ensure that the parties who are treated similarly by the land acquisition officer in the matter of land value receives the same treatment at the hands of the authorities under the land acquisition Act including the land acquisition court. Under Ext.A1 the land value has been refixed at Rs. 10,100/- per Are. Following Ext.A1, the land value of the acquired properties of the petitioner also have to be refixed in that way. Accordingly, allowing the appeal, I re-fix the land value of 7.60 Ares of land acquired from the petitioner at Rs. 10,100/- per Are and decreed that appellant will be entitled to enhanced land value at Rs. 5346/- instead of the L.A.A.No.1169/08 4 enhancement granted by the reference court which is at Rs. 1902/- per Are. It is needless to mention that the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the enhanced land value decreed under this appeal. In the circumstances of this case, parties will suffer their cost throughout. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. L.A.A.No.1169/08 5