IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 843 of 2006(A) ------------------------------- LAR.104/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------------ ALICE, W/O.JOY, VATHUPPALLIYA KAYALMUTTUPARAMBIL, PALLIPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALAI. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SC, KSIDC FOR R2 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Pallippuram village was acquired for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Growth Centre of the KSIDC at Pallippuram. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 24/01/97. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.14,586/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimant adduced evidence which consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, X1 Commissioner's Report and the oral evidence of AWs.1 to 3. On the side of the respondents, the evidence consisted of R1, R2 and oral evidence of RW1. Exts.A1 and A2 were the documents relied on by the claimant to support her claim for enhancement in L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 -2- land value. The court below did not place specific reliance on these documents giving the reason that the parties to these documents were not cited to prove the circumstances under which the documents were executed. Apart from that, in our view there was a better reason justifying the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in ignoring these documents for the purpose of re-fixing the market value. Both these documents are post notification documents and could not have been relied on when other documents including the basis document executed prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification were available. What the learned Subordinate Judge ultimately did was to do some guess work and re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.24,700/- per Are. 2. It is brought to our notice that LAA.1649/07 preferred by the Requisitioning Authority was dismissed by this Court, thus, indirectly approving the enhancement L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 -3- granted by the Reference Court under the impugned judgment. Before us, Sri.Joshi N. Thomas, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the court below was not justified in ignoring Exts.A1 and A2. According to him, at least Ext.A2 could have been taken into account and enhancement granted at least at the rate of Rs.41,990/- per Are, the rate claimed in this appeal. Sri.Jayapradeep, the learned counsel for the respondent would however, support the impugned judgment. According to him, even the enhancement granted under the impugned judgment is exorbitant and is not justified. Sri.Jayapradeep submitted that though the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded higher value to the properties under acquisition than the value awarded for other categories including the category for which the rate of 7678/- was granted the reality is that in quality this property was not in much superior. 3. We have very anxiously considered the rival L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 -4- submissions addressed at the Bar. It is clear to our mind that Exts.A1 and A2 could not have been made a basis for awarding enhancement to the appellant. But then the question is whether there is justification for granting further enhancement over what is awarded under the impugned judgment. In this connection, we notice the judgment of this Court and that of Supreme Court granting approval to the re-fixation of the value of lands for which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded value at the rate of Rs.7678/- per Are, to Rs.17,290/- per Are. The submission of Sri.Jayapradeep notwithstanding, we take it that the property under acquisition in the present case was superior in value and quality than those properties for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded only Rs.7876/- per Are. According to us, there must be some co-relation between the values of different categories of properties lying contiguously within a local area. This means that the final L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 -5- judgment by the Supreme Court that the correct market value of the property for which the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.7678/-, is Rs.17290/- per Are should have some bearing on the correct market value to be determined for the property in question. However, we do notice the minus factors which were noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge in respect of the property under acquisition. Keeping those minus factors in mind, we are of the view that the appellant cannot aspire for an increase in equal proportion to the increase which was given to the properties for which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the value of Rs.7876/- per Are. According to us, the market value of the properties under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at Rs.27,500/- per Are. It is accordingly, fixed allowing this appeal to that extent. The appellant is entitled for all statutory benefits also on the total enhanced compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of this L. A. A. No.843 of 2006 -6- re-fixation. Appeal is allowed as above, however, without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-