IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 1381 of 2009(A) ---------------------------------------- [LAR.NO.359/1997 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY] .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- K.V.SUDHEER BABU, VAYALIL HOUSE, P.O.MOORIYAD, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LA. THALASSERY. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA.T. THANKAPPAN, R2 BY ADVS. SRI.D.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI, SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, ALONG WITH L.A. APP.. NO. 1382/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.1381/09, 1382/09, 1383/09, 1463/09, 1469/09, 1056/09, 1083/09, 1091/09, 1097/09 and 1098/09 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 Judgment Pius C.Kuriakose, J. L.A.A.Nos.1381/09, 1382/09, 1383/09, 1463/09 and 1469/09 are preferred by the claimants and all the other appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority. The properties under acquisition where in Manantheri village and the acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 26.5.1995. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.245/- per cent. The reference court relying mainly on Ext.A1 document would refix the land value at Rs.1500/- per cent. In the appeals preferred by the claimants they contend that what is awarded by the reference court is quite inadequate. But, in the appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority, it is contended that the market value redetermined is excessive. 2. Mr.K.V.Sohan, learned counsel for the appellants- claimants would submit that Ext.A1 is a prenotification document LAA 1381/09 ETC. 2 reflecting a land value of Rs.3000/- per cent. He would submit further that Ext.A6 document, the basis document, was subjected by the Government to under valuation proceedings and hence Ext.A6 could not have been the basis. He pointed out that under Exts.A2, A3, A4 and A5 which were all post notification documents, the value reflected ranges between Rs.6000/- to Rs.3000/-. These documents, according to him, will show that the value of the land was escalating in the locality during the relevant period. Learned counsel requested that at least the value of Rs.3000/- per cent reflected in Ext.A1 should be granted. 3. Mr.Sheejo Chacko, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority at the very outset drew our attention to the judgment of another Division Bench of this court in L.A.A.No.173 of 2002 and connected cases. Learned counsel submitted that under that common judgment this court considered the Government appeals and the claimants appeals and would refix the land value at Rs.1000/- per cent. According to him, the requisitioning authority's appeals are to be allowed and the market value of the property is to be refixed at Rs.1000/- per cent as there has to be uniformity between the value awarded to the similarly placed LAA 1381/09 ETC. 3 land owners. Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned Senior Government Pleader would strike a different note. She drew our attention to our own judgment in L.A.A.No.112 of 2004. She submitted that under that judgment this court has refixed the value of lands for which almost similar value was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.1800/- per cent. This court has also deducted 10% in view of the largeness of the extent involved. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed before us. The short question is as to what is the correct market value to be determined for the lands under acquisition in all these cases. We are not very much impressed by the submission of Mr.Sheejo Chacko regarding the probative force of the judgment of this court in L.A.A.No.173 of 2002 and connected cases. Evidently, Ext.A1 was not before this court or the reference court in that case. According to us, Ext.A1 document is a relevant document. In fact, the learned Subordinate Judge himself relied on Ext.A1 to a certain extent. We feel that based on Ext.A1 itself the market value of the land under acquisition could have been refixed at the rate higher than the present rate of Rs.1500/- per cent. In this context, our own LAA 1381/09 ETC. 4 judgment in L.A.A.No.112 of 2004 assumes significance. We find under that judgment we have refixed the land value of identical lands at Rs.1800/- per cent, but, we deducted 10% from that value in view of the largeness of the extent involved. The extent involved in that case is 7.26 acres. According to us, for the purpose of the present cases, the cases involving more than one acre can be treated as large extents and the cases involving less than one acre can be treated as small extents. According to us, in cases involving large extent, a cut of 5% can be made. Relying mostly on Ext.A1 and our own judgment in L.A.A.No.112 of 2004, we refix the market value of the land at Rs.1800/- per cent. But we clarify that 5% will be deducted therefrom and the market value will stand refixed at Rs.1710/- per cent in all cases other than L.A.A.No.1381/09 corresponding to LAR No.359/97. As the extent involved in L.A.A.No.1381/09 is a nominal extent, the appellant in that appeal will get the land value redetermined at Rs.1800/-per cent itself. The appeals filed by the claimants- appellants, namely, LAA Nos.1381/09, 1382/09, 1383/09, 1463/09 and 1469/09 are allowed. The appeals filed by the requisitioning authority, namely, LAA Nos.1056/09, 1083/09, LAA 1381/09 ETC. 5 1091/09, 1097/09 and 1098/09 are dismissed. It is needless to mention that the appellants-claimants in LAA Nos.1381/09, 1382/09, 1383/09, 1463/09 and 1469/09 will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of this judgment. We make it clear that this judgment will not be a precedent for any other case. The Registry will issue decree copy to the claimants- appellants only after ensuring that the balance court fee is paid in full. Parties will suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd LAA 1381/09 ETC. 6 LAA 1381/09 ETC. 7