IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 64 of 2009() ------------------------ LAR.3/1999 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ---------------------------- * 1. SMT. SREEDEVI, W/O. LATE VELU, THUSHARAM, ACHAMKODE, NENMANI, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. (DIED) 2. V.RAJAN, S/O. LATE VELU, ACHAMKODE, NENMANI, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. * IT IS RECORDED THAT SMT.M.SREEDEVI, APPELLANT NO.1 IS NO MORE AND THAT SHE IS SURVIVED BY V RAJAN , APPELLANT NO.2, HER SON VIDE ORDER DATED 9.8.11 (CF 3544/11) IN LAA 64/09) BY ADV. SRI.M.C.GOPI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA (G) NO.1, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAM KUMAR R2 BY SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 123 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- L.A.A Nos.64/2009 & 123/2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J We have by separate judgment dismissed the appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority. These are appeals preferred by the claimants. 2. The land acquisition officer categorised the properties into three. For dry lands he awarded value at the rate of Rs.2,325/- per cent. For wet lands he awarded the value at the rate of Rs.1000/- per cent. For an area which was lying as a pond he awarded value at Rs.300/- per cent. Before the reference court the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A8. R1 to R3 and X1 Commission's report apart from the oral evidence of AW1 claimant and RW1 an officer of the land acquisition department. On evaluating the evidence the learned subordinate Judge found that neither the basis document nor any other documents produced by the claimants can be treated as a correct basis. The documents relied on by the claimants reflected the values ranging between Rs.5000/- and Rs.4000/- per cent both in respect of dry lands and wet lands. The view of the learned subordinate Judge that neither the basis document nor the L.A.A Nos.64/2009 & 123/2009 2 documents put in evidence by the claimants are in respect of properties comparable with the property under acquisition is substantially correct. Ultimately what the learned Subordinate Judge did was to do guess work and to re-fix the value of the dry lands as Rs.3,000/- per cent and fixed the value of wet land Rs.1,500/- per cent and value of the pond at Rs.750/- per cent. In these appeals preferred by the claimants they contend that the market value preferred by the reference court is grossly inadequate. 2. We heard the submissions of Sri.M.C.Gopi, learned counsel for the appellant and also Sri.C.R Shyam Kumar, the learned Government Pleader. 3. While Mr.Gopi assailed the market value determined by the reference court as grossly inadequate, the submission of Mr.Shyam Kumar was that value granted is excessive. He even submitted that in 1998 the date of the relevant 4(1) notification the properties in question which were evidently situated in Muthalamada Panchayat, 2 kms away from Kollamkode Town did not have even so much of value as is awarded by the reference court. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We made a reappraisal of the L.A.A Nos.64/2009 & 123/2009 3 evidence. We are of the view that while the learned sub judge was justified in not placing reliance on any of the documents produced by the claimants. He was a little miserly when it came to the ultimate fixation of the market value. According to us on a better guess based on what ever evidence is available the learned subordinate Judge could have fixed the value of dry land under acquisition as Rs.4,000/-, and at Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1250/- per cent respectively as the value of wet lands and pond. 5. Accordingly, we allow this appeal by re-fixing the value for dry lands at Rs.4,000/- per cent, similarly we re-fix the value of wet lands under acquisition at Rs.2,000/- and re-fix the value of pond under acquisition at Rs.1,250/-. The appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2) 23(1) A and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the total refixed compensation. Appeals are allowed. However without any order as to the costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab