IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 LA.App..No. 25 of 2010(A) ----------------------------- LAR.172/2005 of ADD. SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------- RAMAN NAIR RAVINDRAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 64, POOVAPPALLIL HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL SRI.SIJO GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN (SR.) THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010 A/W LAA.339/10 & CON. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.1510 of 2009 & 25, 339 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants are in appeal. Their wet lands in Kaduthuruthy village were acquired for the purpose of construction of Government Poly Technic at Kaduthuruthy. The relevant Section 4 (1) notification was published on 04/11/03. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.926/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimants adduced evidence and Ext.A1 document in LAR.160/05 corresponding to LAA.1510/09 and Ext.C1 commission report were the two items which were relied on mostly by the L. A. A. No.1510 of 2009 & con. cases -2- claimants. Ext.A1 was a sale deed dated 15/07/02. A copy of Ext.A1 is handed over to us by Sri.Francis Joseph Kurisunkal, the learned counsel for the appellant. Even though Sri.Kurisunkal submitted that Ext.A1 relates to wet lands, having gone through Ext.A1 we are not in a position to accept his submission. We hold that Ext.A1 relates to reclaimed land. Ext.A1 reveals land value of Rs.7,407/- per Are. But as already stated, the acquired property unlike Ext.A1 property was only wet land. The appellant did not produce any document pertaining to wet lands reflecting value higher than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Under Ext.C1 Commissioner reported that the acquired property and the property covered by Ext.A1 are L. A. A. No.1510 of 2009 & con. cases -3- comparable. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the Commission Report saying that the Commissioner inspected the property four years after the relevant date. We are in a position to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having discarded the Commission Report and hold that the report cannot be relied on to hold that the property under acquisition and the property in Ext.A1 are similar. At the same time, we notice that the property covered by Ext.A1 was also acquired by the Government for the very same purpose. We gather that the above, property was treated as reclaimed land and a higher rate was granted. Even though Ext.A1 pertains a different type of land, we feel that the market value for reclaimed lands reflected in L. A. A. No.1510 of 2009 & con. cases -4- Ext.A1 has some bearing on the correct market value of wet lands. Keeping the above aspect in mind and making a re-assessment of the entire evidence ignoring the oral evidence adduced by the parties and Ext.C1 report, we are of the view that the market value of the land under acquisition can be reasonably re-fixed at Rs.2,525/- per Are. Accordingly, we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.2,525/- per Are. This means that for the land under acquisition, the appellants will get Rs.1,001/- per Are more than what is awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Court. The appeal will stand allowed as above. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of L. A. A. No.1510 of 2009 & con. cases -5- the Land Acquisition Act. While drafting the decree, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court in the orders condoning the delay caused in the matter of fling the appeals. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Registry will issue certified copies of the decree to the appellants only after ensuring that full court fee is remitted. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS JUDGE kns/-