IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 201 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.177/2007 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- THRESSIAKUTTY JACOB, AGED 55, W/O.JACOB, NHATTIMAKKAL HOUSE, KUNNOTH, KILIYANTHARA. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.VASU THOTATHIL SMT.DIVYA K.NAIR RESPONDENT(S).RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., TRANSMISSION DIVISION, KANHIRODE, THALASSERY, PIN-670 592. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) THALASSERY, PIN-670 101. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R2 SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 201 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Vilamana Village was acquired for the purpose of construction of approach road to KSEB 66 KV Sub Station, Iritty. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 27-1-2006. The land was dry land and the acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2257/- per cent. It was on Ext.A3 and Ext. C-1 commission report that the claimant relied on mostly in respect of claim for enhanced land value. Ext.A3 is a pre- notification document which revealed a value of more than Rs.19,000/- per cent. Ext. C-1 was report by a commissioner based on a local inspection recommending for much higher value based on what is mentioned in C-1 as the prevailing rates in the locality. The learned Subordinate LAA.201/11 -2- Judge did not become inclined to rely on Ext. A3 or on C-1. This was mainly for the reason that the Advocate Commissioner had not submitted a report regarding the comparability between the acquired property and the A3 property. What was reported by the Advocate Commissioner in C-1 was only that the distance between A3 property and acquired property was 40 metres. Another aspect which dissuaded the learned Subordinate Judge from awarding the rate shown in Ext. A3 was that A3 property was shown to be having direct frontage of road, while going by the mahazar, the acquired property did not enjoy road frontage. 2. We have heard the rival submissions made by Sri. Abraham K.John, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.Santhalingam, learned senior counsel for the Electricity Board. Mr. Abraham K. John submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in discarding Ext.A3 LAA.201/11 -3- completely. The distance between A3 property and the property under acquisition was only 40 metres. Ext.A1 title deed of the appellant will show that the property covered by A1 including the property under acquisition was enjoying the frontage of Thalassery - Koorg Road. When a small portion of that property is acquired, the land acquisition officer is not entitled to contend that the portion actually acquired lacks in road frontage. Mr. Abraham K. John submitted that atleast Rs.19,000/- per cent reflected in A3 be allowed as A3 property was not enjoying frontage of Thalassery - Koorg Road, the main thoroughfare of the locality but was enjoying frontage of only the Panchayat Road, a mud road. 3. All the submissions of Mr. Abraham K. John were resisted by Mr. P.Santhalingam, senior counsel for the Electricity Board. According to Mr. Santhalingam, it is the Electricity Board who should be aggrieved by the land value re-fixed as it was purely on guess work the learned LAA.201/11 -4- Subordinate Judge awarded enhancement of about 200% over what was awarded by the land acquisition officer. 4. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are not inclined to approve the view of the learned Subordinate Judge that the property under acquisition is to be treated as property not enjoying the frontage of Thalassery - Koorg Road. We have perused A1 as well as the sketch which forms part of A1. It is not disputed that the property under acquisition is a small portion out of the holding covered by Ext.A1. The sketch as well as the boundary description in A1 will clearly show that the property covered by A1 was directly abutting Thalassery - Koorg Road though to a length of 35.7 metres only. It is true that the property acquired did not enjoy the direct frontage of Thalassery - Koorg Road. We follow the principles laid down by this Court in Sreedharan & others v. State of Kerala, 1967 KLT 1067 and hold that atleast to a LAA.201/11 -5- certain extent the property under acquisition should have been taken to be a property having the facility of Thalassery - Koorg Road. We feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in discarding A3 altogether. Ofcourse, in C-1, there is no comparative evaluation of the acquired property and A3 property. Even then, the properties were close to each other, the distance being only 40 metres. Having made a reappraisal of the evidence on record and having kept in mind the principles for determining market value of land in land acquisition cases, we feel that there is justification for re-fixing the value of land under acquisition at Rs.12,000/- per cent. The value of the land is accordingly re-fixed at Rs.12,000/- per cent. 5. The appeal is allowed as above. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits also. However, while provision is made for interest under Section 28, the section LAA.201/11 -6- will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court while allowing C.M. Appln. No. 415 of 2011. The decree copy will be issued only after ensuring that those conditions have been complied with and that the full court fee payable on the appeal memo is remitted. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this appeal. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-