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. 582 of 2000(A) -------------------------- LAR.22/1995 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT -------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS --------------- C.S.I. TRUST ASSOCIATION REP. BY 1. REV. JACOB THOMAS 2. EDWIN SADANAND ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009 ALONG WITH LAA NO. 351 OF 2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.NOs. 582/2000 & 351/2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Eventhough these appeals pertain to acquisition for different purposes, since the property under acquisition in these cases are similar and situated nearby and we notice that the judgment of the reference court which is impugned in L.A.A. No. 582/2000 has been relied on by the reference court in L.A.R.No. 311/1997 against which L.A.A.No. 351/2002 has been filed, we are disposing of both these appeals by a common judgment. 2. Having gone through the judgment in L.A.R.No. 22/1995 against which L.A.A.No. 582/2000 has been filed, we find that it is based on the Advocate Commissioner's report that the learned Subordinate Judge has refixed the market value of the acquired properties at Rs. 2,00,000/-. The three sale documents which were put in evidence by the claimants were post notification documents. The 4th one was a pre-notification document. But it related to a property which LAA.Nos. 582/00 & 351/02 2 could not have been made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired properties. The Advocate Commissioner had certainly opined that market value of the property at the relevant time was Rs. 2,50,000/-. Sri.T.Krishnanunni, senior counsel for the claimant is perhaps right when he submits that having regard to the peculiar location of the acquired properties in these cases, a sale document in respect of a comparable property - a property which is exactly similar is impossible. But at the same time, determination of market value of acquired properties by the reference court under Section 18 has to be on the parameters and guidelines set out under Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. We have very carefully gone through the Advocate Commissioner's report. It is seen that the Advocate Commissioner had given his recommendation regarding market value not on the basis of value revealed in any sale document. Advocate Commissioner's report appears to be based solely on information orally conveyed to him by the local public. The position being so, the report could not have been made a basis by the reference court for refixation of the market value at the rates presently granted. At the same time, we are in complete LAA.Nos. 582/00 & 351/02 3 agreement with Sri.T.Krishnanunni, senior counsel and the learned counsel for the claimant in L.A.A.No. 351/2002 that the basis documents relied on by the awarding officer does not throw sufficient light on the market value which prevailed in the locality at the relevant time. 4. Having made a survey of the entire evidence including the oral evidence adduced by the parties, we feel that the market value of the property at the relevant time was certainly more than Rs.1,00,000/-. At the same, we do not propose to decide the issue finally in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that if opportunity is given, the claimants will be able to adduce better evidence regarding the correct market value of the properties at the relevant time . Therefore we leave the question of determining the correct market value of the acquired properties on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence which comes to be adduced to the reference court itself. 5. The result is that the judgments under appeals are set aside. The land acquisition reference cases are remanded to the land acquisition reference court. That court is directed to permit both sides LAA.Nos. 582/00 & 351/02 4 to adduce further evidence and to take a fresh decision on the basis of the evidence which comes on record. While passing revised judgment, the reference court will have due regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. ( 2008 SAR (Civil) 894) and will take into account post notification document only when it becomes absolutely necessary. However, in view of our finding that the market value at the relevant time is above Rs. 1 lakh per cent, there will be a direction to the respondents to deposit 50% of the amount payable under the decree, which is being set aside less amounts already deposited within three months and upon such deposit, the appellants will be entitled to withdraw such amounts. The order of remand will become operative only if the amounts as directed above is deposited by the appellants within three months from today. If deposits are not made, the impugned judgments will stand confirmed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE sv. LAA.Nos. 582/00 & 351/02 5