IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 LA.App..No. 300 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.28/2003 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDSAR, LAND ACQUISITION, THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT --------------------- SUDHA, D/O.GOPALA PILLAI, POOVASSERIL, THODUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON 5.2.2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.981 OF 2007 IN L.A.A. NO.300 OF 2007 . DISMISSED 5.2.2008 Sd/-(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 300 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.7.2006 in L.A.R. No.28 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. The State of Kerala is the appellant. 2. An extent of 8 cents and 400 sq. links of land situated in Thodupuzha Village belonging to the claimant was acquired for the Vengalloor -Mangattukavala road. Section 4(1) notification was published on 1.6.1999. L.A.R. No.28 of 2003 and L.A.R. No.49 of 2003 were jointly tried and L.A.R. No. 49 of 2003 was taken as the leading case in which evidence was recorded. 3. The claimant in L.A.R. No.49 of 2003 was examined as AW.1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Exts.R1 to R5 were marked on the side of the respondent. Exts.C1and C1(a) are the report and sketch respectively submitted by the Commissioner. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded L.A.A.NO.300/2007 2 land value at the rate of Rs.4,900/- per Are equivalent to Rs.1,980/- per cent. The acquired property was classified under Group III B wet land. The reference court relying on the judgment dated 29.7.2005 in L.A.R. No.48 of 2003 and connected cases refixed the land value after deducting 40% of the land value given in L.A.R. No.48 of 2003 and awarded Rs.29,625/- per cent less Rs.1980/- already awarded. The reference court accepted the contention of the claimant that the land involved in the case was wrongly classified as Group III B wet land and found that the classification should have been Group III A dry land. The reference court also noted the fact that the same court had refixed land value for land coming under Group III A at the rate of Rs.29,625/- per cent. 4. The acquired land is situated 750 metres west of the western boundary of Mangattukavala Municipal bus station and 40 metres west of Thodupuzha-Ezhalloor public road. The reference court noticed the fact that the property covered by L.A.R.No.48 of 2003 and the acquired land are acquired under the very same notification and are similar and similarly situated, both falling under the same group, namely Group III A dry land. This was the basis for fixing the land value of the acquired land at Rs.29,625/- per cent. L.A.A.NO.300/2007 3 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant brought to our notice the decision of the same court dated 7.2.2006 in L.A.R. No.42 of 2003. The property acquired in L.A.R. No.42 of 2003 was classified as Group II B wet land and was categorised as reclaimed paddy land i.e. wet converted. According to the learned counsel, the property belong to the claimant is also reclaimed land. In L.A.R. No.42 of 2003, the court below refixed land value at the rate of Rs.34,000/- per cent and this Court confirmed the findings of the reference court and dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.42 of 2003 by judgment dated 18.1.2008 in L.A.A. No.241 of 2007. Counsel contended that the respondent/claimant is entitled to more land value than that awarded by the reference court in view of the decision in L.A.R. No.42 of 2003. The main contention of the learned Government Pleader is that being an unauthorisedly reclaimed wet land, land value may not be given at the same rate with dry land. But the undisputed factual position is that at the time of acquisition, the property was not wet land and no action was also taken against the claimant for the alleged conversion. In the absence of any such penal proceedings, the claimant is entitled to land value on the basis of the nature and lie of the property at the time of Section 4(1) notification. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that refixation of land value at the rate of Rs.29,625/- per cent L.A.A.NO.300/2007 4 is just and reasonable. No grounds are made out for interfering with the judgment under appeal. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ L.A.A.NO.300/2007 5 KURAIN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.J L.A.A. .NO JUDGMENT 18th JANUARY, 2008