IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 707 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.12/1993 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- A.M.SHAMSUDEEN, IQBAI MANZIL, KEEZHATHIL VEEDU, NADAYARA, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. E.S.I.CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009 ALONG WITH LAA.NO.712/2004 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.Nos.707, 712, 727928, 953 of 2004 &27 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. L.A.A.No.712/04 is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.13/199, L.A.A.No.707/2004 is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.12/93 and L.A.A.No.727/2004 is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.14/93. All these three appeals are preferred by the claimants. L.A.A.Nos.928/04, 27/2005 and 953/2004 are the corresponding appeals filed by the requisitioning authority, the ESI Corporation. 2. These appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Navaikulam village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 28-07-1990 for the purpose of construction of ESI hospital and quarters. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 3345/- per Are corresponding to Rs. 1353/- per cent. The reference court on the basis of the evidence which came on record enhanced the land value in all cases except L.A.R.No. 12/93 ( corresponding to L.A.A.Nos. 953/2004 LAA.No.707/04& connected cases 2 and 707/2004) at Rs. 8,250/- per cent. This was done on the basis of Ext.A3 document executed in 1988. But in L.A.R.No.12/1993, the learned Subordinate Judge became inclined to grant only a lesser amount in view of the passage of high tension electric lines over a portion of the properties and in that case, the value was refixed at Rs. 6,250/- per cent. 3. We have heard the submissions of Smt.T.D.Rajalakshmi, standing counsel for ESI Corporation and Sri.B.Premnath, learned counsel for the claimants and also those of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader. While Smt.Rajalakshmi would assail the enhancement granted by the reference court, Sri.B.Premnath would argue for more enhancement. As regards L.A.R.No.12/1993, he argued that at any rate there was no justification for granting only a lesser amount in that case since the land acquisition officer had granted the same rate. He submitted that the total extent of the property involved in that case was 61 Ares and the high tension electric line passes through only 10 cents of land. The learned senior Government Pleader would support the submissions of Smt.T.D.Rajalakshmi. LAA.No.707/04& connected cases 3 4. L.A.A.Nos. 1489/2005, 9/2006 and 1484/2005 were appeals preferred by the government in respect of other cases pertaining to the very same acquisition. In the judgments which were impugned in those cases enhancement at the rates granted under the impugned judgment in this case were granted. We by separate judgments, dismissed those appeals holding that the enhancement granted by the reference court is reasonable and cannot be interfered with at the instance of the government. 5. Having regard to the reasons stated in those judgments and taking into account the submissions addressed before us and on reappraisal of the evidence, we are inclined to hold in these cases also that the refixation of the market value of the land at Rs. 8,250/- per cent by the reference court is reasonable. We feel having regard to the importance of the locality and the locational advantages which the property enjoyed, Rs. 8250/- per cent is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time. All the same, we are unable to approve the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in L.A.R.12/1993 to award only a sum of Rs. 6250/- per cent for the LAA.No.707/04& connected cases 4 properties in that case. After all, the land acquisition officer treated that property to be similar in value to the properties involved in the other cases. It would appear as though drawal of high tension electric lines has resulted in diminution of the value of the properties under acquisition . But it is almost clear that the entire extent of 61 Ares under acquisition in that case has not been affected by the drawal of electric lines. It is only 10 cents which has been affected and 10 cents is originally a small portion. We feel that there is no justification for deviating from the ratio maintained by the land acquisition officer in his award between the properties in that case and the properties in the other cases. Accordingly, we hold that the claimant in L.A.R.No.12/1993 is also entitled to refixation of market value for his acquired property at Rs. 8,250/- per cent. 6. The result of these appeals therefore is as follows : All appeals except L.A.A.Nos.953/2004 and 707/2004 will stand dismissed without any order as to costs. L.A.A.No.707/2004 will stand allowed by refixing the market value of the acquired properties at Rs. 8,250/- ( eight thousand two hundred and fifty) per cent. LAA.No.707/04& connected cases 5 L.A.A.No.953/2004 also will stand dismissed. It is made clear that the claimants in all these appeals will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (1A), 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act inclusive of statutory interest on the solatium component of the compensation. Parties are directed to suffer costs incurred by them respectively. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.707/04& connected cases 6