IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1802 of 2002(A) --------------------------- LAR.23/1999 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. CHERIYAKUNNATH ABDULLAKUTTY HAJI, C.K.HOUSE, MOODADI. 2. C.K.HAMSA, THAYALAKANDY HOUSE, CHIRAKKARA P.O., THALASSERY ( DIED) 3. C.K.ASYA HAJJUMMA, GASAL, NEAR MOIDEEN MOSQUE, KOIYLANDY. 4. C.K.KADEESAKUTTY, KOTTAYAM PURATHU HOUSE NADUVATHOOR P.O., KOILANDY. 5. C.K.HAFEESA, C.K.HOUSE, MADRASSA ROAD, KOYILANDY. 6. C.K.SAINABA, ABDULLA ESTATE P.O., PONHASSERTY, ALUVA. 7. C.K.KUNHASINA, C.K.HOUSE, MADRASSA ROAD, KOILANDY P.O. LAA.NO.1802/02 8. C.K.MAMMU HAJI, KOTTAL HOUSE, P.O.ANIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT 9. C. ABDULRAHMANKUTTY, RAHMANKUTTY, RAJEENA NIVAS, NEAR T.B., KOYILANDY. 10. A.V.FATHIMAS, W/O ALI, SAHITHA MANZIL NEAR CHEKKOTTY PALLY, KOYILANDY 11. MANIKKAMVEETTIL POKKINARI AYISHA KOYILANDY TALUK VELLARKKAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK 12. THE SECRETARY, KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 13. SAFIYA, W/O LATE C.K.HAMSA, THAYALKANDY HOUSE CHIRAKKARA, THALASSERY 14. FEMIDA, D/O LATE C.K.HAMSA, DO- 15. JASITHA, D/O LATE C.K.HAMSA, DO- 16. SHABINA MARIYAM, -DO- 17. MUHAMMED ANEES, - DO- ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 13 TO 17 ARE IMPLEADED AS LRs OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 6-2-07 IN I.A.NO.187/2006. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R12 SRI.T.P.ELDHO FOR R12 SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR FOR R.8,9 SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE FOR ADDL.R13TOR17 SMT.P.V.PARVATHI FOR ADDL.R13 TO 17 SMT.REENA THOMAS FOR ADDL.R13 TO 17 SRI.L.RAM MOHAN FOR ADDL.R13 TO 17 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009 ALONG WITH LAA NO. 384 OF 2003 , LAANO. 591 OF 2003 LAA NO. 1460 OF 2005 LAA NO. 285 OF 2005 LAA NO. 1451 OF 2003 LAANO. 1472 OF 2003 LAA NO. 131 OF 2004 LAA NO. 633 OF 2004 LAANO 132 OF 2004 LAA NO. 282 OF 2005 LAA NO. 947 OF 2004 LAANO 1285 OF 2005 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.Nos. 1802/2002 & 384, 591, 1451 , 1472 OF 2003 & 131, 132, 633, 947 OF 2004 & 282, 285, 1285, 1460 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. All these appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Panthalayani village for the construction of a Municipal bus stand for the Koyilandy Municipality. L.A.A.Nos. 1802/2002, 1460/2005 are appeals preferred by the Government. L.A.A.No. 1451/03, 1472/03, 132/04, 591/03 and 947/2004 are appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority, the Municipality. L.A.A.Nos. 384/03, 633/04, 282/05, 285/05, 1285/05 are appeals preferred by the claimants. L.A.A.No. 591/03, 384/03, 1802/03 are appeals preferred against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No. 23/1999 which is in respect of acquisition of 0.2550 Hectares ( 60 cents) of garden land in R.S.No.24/3 of Panthalayani village. L.A.A.No.1472/2003 is the only appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No. 92/2001 which is in respect of LAA.No.1802/02 & connected cases 2 acquisition of 0.0236 Hectares ( 5.83 cents) of land in R.S.No.23/13 of Panthalayani village. L.A.A.No. 947/2001 is against the jdugment and decree in L.A.R.No.94/2001 which was in respect of acquisition of 0.1035 Hectars ( 25.57 cents) of garden land in R.S.No. 23/11 of Panthalayani village. L.A.A.No. 1460/2005 and 285/2005 are both directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.95/2001 which was in respect of acquisition of 0.1214 Hectares ( 30 cents) of garden land in R.S.No. 23/4 of Panthalayani village. L.A.A.No. 1451/2003 which is directed against the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No. 96/2001 which was in respect of acquisition of 0.2733 Hectares ( 67.5 cents) of garden land in R.S.No.23/1 A of Panthalayani village. L.A.A.No. 132/2004 and 633/2004 are both directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No. 10/2002. This L.A.R. was in respect of acquisition of 0.0010 Hectares ( 0.247 cents) of garden land in R.S.No. 22/28 of Panthalayani village. L.A.A.No. 131/2004 is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No. 17/2002 which was in respect of 0.196 Hectares ( 4.841 cents) of land in RS.No.22/23 of Panthalayani village. L.A.R.No. 92/2001 and LAA.No.1802/02 & connected cases 3 96/2001 were disposed of by the reference court by a common judgment dated 29-03-2003. Similarly, L.A.R.Nos. 10/2002 and 17/2002 were disposed of by another common judgment along with four other LAR cases. 2. The relevant Section 4(1) notification pertaining to L.A.R.No. 23/1999 corresponding to L.A.A.No. 591/2003, 384/2003, 1802/2002 was published on 13-10-1997 and in that case, the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 9,500/- per cent. The relevant Section 4(1) notification pertaining to the other LAR cases covered by these appeals were published on 04/11/1997. In L.A.R.No. 92/2001 corresponding to L.A.A.No. 1472/2003, the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the same rate for the land acquired. In L.A.R.No. 96/2001 corresponding to L.A.A.No. 1451/2003, L.A.R.No. 10/2002 corresponding to L.A.A.No. 132/2004 and 633/2004 and also in L.A.R.No. 17/2002 corresponding to L.A.A.No. 131/2004. For the properties in L.A.R.NO. 95/2001 corresponding to L.A.A.No. 1460/2005 and 285/2005, the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 1,658.60 per LAA.No.1802/02 & connected cases 4 cent. L.A.R.No. 23/1999 was enquired into elaborately by the learned Subordinate Judge and the evidence in that reference case consisted of Exts.A1 to A8 , Exts.R1 to R3, Ext.C1 to C3 reports and plan submitted by the Commissioner apart from testimonies of witnesses AWs 1 to 8 and RWs 1 and 2. Learned Subordinate Judge in that case on an evaluation of the evidence refixed the land value at Rs. 45,000/- per cent. In the other cases, the learned Subordinate Judge on the basis of the evidence which was available refixed the value of land under acquisition at different rates. In L.A.R.No. 92/2001 against which L.A.A.No. 1472/2003 was filed the land acquisition court would refix the land value from Rs. 1929/- per cent to Rs. 27,500/- per cent. But in L.A.R.No.94/2001 for which land acquisition officer had awarded the same rate ( 1929 per cent), the court refixed the land value at Rs. 15,000/- per cent. Similarly, in L.A.R.Nos. 96/2001, 10/2002 and 17/2002, the court refixed land value at rates respectively of Rs. 27,500/- per cent, 25,000/- per cent and Rs. 18,000/- per cent, though the land acquisition officer had awarded the same value of Rs. 1929/- per cent. This variation was the result of the separate trial LAA.No.1802/02 & connected cases 5 conducted by the learned Subordinate Judge and the difference in the evidence which came on record. In L.A.R.No. 95/2001 against which L.A.A.No. 1468/05 and 285/2005 have been preferred before this court, the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 1658.60 which was refixed by the reference court at Rs. 5000/- per cent. 3. Very extensive submissions were addressed before us by the learned counsel for the appellants in these cases namely the standing counsel for the Municipality, Sri.M.Sasindran, Sri.B.Krishnan, Sri.K.V.Badrakumari, Sri.M.P. Ramanath, Sri.C.Valsalan, the learned counsel for the claimants and also Sri.Basant Balaji and Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleaders for the State. We were taken through the evidence which was available before the reference court in the various cases. Our attention was also drawn to the judgment of this court in land acquisition appeals pertaining to certain L.A.R. judgments in respect of acquisition for the very same Municipality for the purposes of a market. Our attention was drawn to the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan which will LAA.No.1802/02 & connected cases 6 reveal that the properties in those cases were not situated very far away from the acquired properties in these cases. 4. We did find merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleaders as well as the learned standing counsel for the Municipality that the judgment of this court in cases pertaining to acquisition for the market should have some relevance in the matter of determining the correct compensation for the properties acquired under these cases. Initially we did become inclined to interfere with the enhancement granted by the reference court in these cases to a certain extent. However, the learned counsel for the claimants particularly Sri.B.Krishnan would very persuasively submit that the claimants will be able to adduce further evidence including evidence regarding the comparability of all the properties acquired in these cases and the properties acquired for the market and that if opportunity is given, the claimants will be able to establish that even the enhancement presently granted by the reference court under the impugned judgment is inadequate. Learned Government Pleaders and the learned standing counsel for the Municipality submitted that in case this court is inclined LAA.No.1802/02 & connected cases 7 to order remand, the same should be an open remand giving opportunity to the Municipality also to adduce additional evidence. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned judgments and decrees in all these cases can be set aside and the L.A.R. cases can be remanded to the reference court so that a fresh decision regarding the correct market value of the properties can be taken by that court. The result therefore is that all these appeals will stand allowed by way of remand to the reference court. The judgments and decrees under appeal are set aside. The L.A.R. cases are remanded to the Subordinate Judge's court, Koyilandy. That court will permit both sides to adduce further evidence, if they want to. Revised judgment will be passed on the basis of the evidence already on record and the further evidence which comes to be on record. It is needless to mention that the requisitioning authority will have the liberty to rely on the judgment of this court in the appeals pertaining to acquisition for the establishment of market. The learned Subordinate Judge will complete the enquiry and pass revised judgment within four months of the LAA.No.1802/02 & connected cases 8 parties entering appearance before that court pursuant to this order of remand. Tranmit records forthwith. Refund the full court fee paid on L.A.A.No. 384, 591, 1451 , 1472 of 2003 & 131, 132, 633, 947 of 2004 & 282, 285, 1285 of 2005 to the learned counsel for the appellants. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1802/02 & connected cases 9