IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 LA.App..No. 736 of 2009(D) -------------------------------------- LAR.1/2004 of SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI. RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: -------------------------------------- BHASURANGI AMMA, D/O. PARUKUTTY AMMA ADICHANAZHY PUTHEN VEEDU, MULLOOR, MULLOOR.P.O., VIZHINJAM. BY ADV. MR.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. -------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 736 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose This appeal is by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Vizhinjam Village for the purpose of widening of Mulloor- Kalungunada Inchippulluvila road. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 13.4.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.21918/- per Are. The Reference Court relying on Ext.A11 would refix land value at Rs.54795/- per Are. The Government challenges the enhancement. Eventhough several documents were produced by the respondent-claimant the learned Subordinate Judge relied only on Ext.A11 judgment of the same court in another case. But according to the senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji Ext.A11 was not a relevant document since the acquisition in Ext.A11 was different and the section 4(1) notification relating to Ext.A11 was 2 years subsequent to the present section 4(1) notification. Therefore the court below was not justified in LAA.736/2010 2 granting so much of enhancement as was granted in respect of the property came by Ext.A11. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent would point out that properties were in the same village and the distance between the two properties was not much. 3. Having considered the rival submissions and having gone through the impugned judgment we feel that Ext.A11 was not totally irrelevant since the property was in the same village and the distance between the properties was not much. At the same time we are of the view that the same rate as was granted to the property in Ext.A11 should not have been granted in view of the passage of two years time. According to us, there is justification for deducting atleast 25% from the value presently granted taking into account the passage of two years time. Making such deduction the market value for the property will come to a little lessor sum of Rs.42,000/- per Are which will round of Rs.42,000/-. Allowing this appeal we refix the land value at Rs.45,000/- per Are. But it is made clear that for the total enhanced compensation by virtue of the refixation of the land value, the claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits LAA.736/2010 3 admissible under section 23(IA), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pmn/ The figure “Rs.45,000/-” occurring in the 13th line, paragraph 3 of the judgment is corrected and substituted as “Rs.42,000/-”, vide order dated 14.2.2011 in I.A.No.4403/2010 in LAA.No.736/2009. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) LAA.736/2010 4