IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 575 of 2004() & C.O.17/2007 ------------------------- LAR.146/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------ AJAYA BABU (AJITH KUMAR), NEELAKANDA VILASAM, KATTAMPAKKU KARA, NEZHOOR, VAIKOM. ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, ALONG WITH CO NO. 17 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.575/2004 & C.O.NO.17/2007 IN LAA 575/04. ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal is preferred by the Government and the case pertains to acquisition of land in Njeezhoor Village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/3/1999 for the purpose of Kuravilangad Distributory. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.11,110/- per Are including land under acquisition in category-1 i.e. properties having frontage of the PWD Road. It was Ext.A3 document which was relied by the awarding officer. Ext.A3 revealed land value of Rs.5000/- per cent only. But, it came on record in evidence that proceedings for undervaluation was initiated by the District Registrar in respect of Ext.A3 document and ultimately the court has also found that the correct market value of Ext.A3 property at the relevant time was Rs.20,000/- per cent. The claimant relied on Ext.A3. The claimant also relied on Ext.A1 sale document dated 27/10/1998. Ext.A1 was in respect of a plot having 10 cents in extent. Ext.A1 revealed land value of L.A.A.No.575/04 & CO No.17/2007 2 Rs.13,000/- per cent. The reference court found that Ext.A1 was in respect of a comparable property. Nevertheless, the court did not become inclined to grant full value revealed in Ext.A1 on the reason that Ext.A1 is a small plot. Ext.A3 was also in respect of 10 cents in extent. The court made a cut of 25% of the value revealed in Ext.A1 for arriving at the market value of the property. However we feel , having regard to the submissions of Sri.Mohan Pulickkai, learned counsel for the Cross Objector/claimant and those of Sri.Bejoy Chandran, learned Government Pleader, that the cut of 25% made by the learned Subordinate Judge on the value revealed in Ext.A1 was not justified. Taking into account Ext.A1 as well as the correct market value found by the court in respect of Ext.A3, we feel that the correct market value of the acquired property at the relevant time was not below 13,000/- per cent. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Allowing the Cross Objection filed by the claimant, we refix the value of the acquired land at Rs.13,000/- per cent. 2. The Cross Objection will stand allowed to that extent, but without any order as to costs. It is needless to mention that the cross objector will be L.A.A.No.575/04 & CO No.17/2007 3 entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act for the total enhanced compensation which becomes admissible to him by virtue of our refixation of land value under this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk