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 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 554 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.136/1995 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS: ------------------------------------- SUDHAKARAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, KANDATHIL HOUSE, ONAKKOOR KARA, ONAKKOOR KARA VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/200 ALONG WITH LAA NO. 569 OF 2007 LAA NO. 1074 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.NOs.554, 569 OF 2006 & 1074 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. All these appeals preferred by the government pertain to acquisition of land at Onakkur Village for the construction of Onakkur bridge. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 05-09-1991. The land acquisition officer categorised the lands under acquisition into four categories. Category 1 were wet lands converted into dry lands having the frontage of Muvattupuzha- Piravam main road. For these lands the awarding officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.11,462/- per Are. Category No.2 were dry lands having frontage of Onakkur-Elanji-Periyapuram road and for these lands, the awarding officer granted land value at the rate of Rs. 12035/- per Are. Catergory 3 were wet lands converted into dry lands lying below the road level. For these lands, the awarding officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 9743/- per Are. The acquired properties in these appeals were in category 4 since they are pakka wet lands at the time of L.A.A.NOs.554, 569 OF 2006 & 1074 OF 2007 2 acquisition. For these lands, the awarding officer awarded only Rs. 925/- per Are. The endeavour of the claimant/respondents before the reference court was to give evidence regarding the reclamation charges which will be necessary for reclaiming the acquired properties as dry lands. For that a suit was filed before the Munsiff Court and an Advocate Commissioner was got issued. The report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner who was assisted by an expert was that the charges for reclamation of 1 cent of wet land is Rs.1542/- per cent. The reference court did not become inclined to accept the Commissioner's report. According to that court the identity of the properties inspected by the Advocate Commissioner was not clear from the report. A copy of the Commissioner's report was placed before us by Sri.K.J.Kuriachan. It is seen that the inspection was conducted after giving notice to the government and to the local government pleader. Of course, at the time of inspection they were absent. But we are convinced that the properties inspected by the Advocate Commissioner were these properties themselves. Even if the learned Subordinate Judge's view that the reclamation charges recommended by the L.A.A.NOs.554, 569 OF 2006 & 1074 OF 2007 3 Advocate Commissioner was not the correct charges is correct, then also the fact remains that the properties were reclaimable. Probably taking into account that aspect of the matter also the learned Sub Jude refixed the land value at Rs. 5,000/-. It should be noticed that the values of the properties in the other three categories were also substantially increased by the learned Subordinate Judge. According to us, there must be some correlation between the values of dry lands and wet lands within a compact local area. We find no infirmity about the fixation of market value by the learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment. More over, we notice that the total valuation of these appeals is also not much. Taking into account all these circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. L.A.A.NOs.554, 569 OF 2006 & 1074 OF 2007 4