IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 84 of 2005() ------------------------ LAR.5/2003 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT -------------- VARAPRATH KUNJAPPA KURUP, S/O.APPU KUTTY NAMBIAR, MUTHIER HOUSE P.O., CHORODE, VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, (2A) N.H.I., KOZHIKODE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.84 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Heard Sri.Rakesh Roshan.K., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent. This appeal by the claimant pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of widening of National Highway 17 i.e. for the development of a bell mouth. The property was situated in Cherode Panchayat, however, at a distance of less than 1 km. away from Vadakara town. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 17/08/2001 and the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 7900/- per cent. Before the reference court there was evidence on the side of the appellant claimant alone. The same consisted of Ext.A1 sale deed revealing a centage value of Rs. 49,000/-, the oral testimony of AW1- the claimant, and the Commissioner's report Ext.X1 and the Commissioner's plan Ext.X2. The Commissioner recommended a land value of Rs. 49,500/- relying on LAA.No.84/05 2 Ext.A1 and reported that the acquired property is superior to Ext.A1 property. The court below which accepted the contention of the claimant that the basis document relied on by the land acquisition officer was not dependable, was not prepared to accept Ext.A1 either. Ext.A1 property was situated 3 ½ km. away from the acquired property and was not comparable with the acquired property in any manner. The Commissioner's report was to a certain extent relied on to find that the property was situated in an important area and what the learned Subordinate Judge ultimately did was to rely on document No. 1760 of 2001 of Sub Registry, Vadakara which revealed a centage value of Rs. 15686/- and to refix the land value at Rs. 15,000/-. 2. Sri.Rakesh Roshan, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the acquired property was far superior to the property covered by Ext.A1. According to him, there was no counter evidence on the side of the government and therefore the Advocate Commissioner's recommendations should have been accepted especially since no objection had been filed to the report by anybody. Sri.Basant Balaji, senior Government Pleader would oppose the LAA.No.84/05 3 submissions of Sri.Rakesh Roshan. We have considered the rival submissions and we have examined those items of evidence to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel. According to us, the learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in not relying on Ext.A1 since the property covered by that document was situated 3 ½ km. away from the acquired property and did not bear any comparison with the acquired property. We also are in a position to approve the reliance placed by the learned Subordinate Judge on document No. 1760 of 2001 SRO, Vadakara despite its non-production by any of the parties. We find that the above document had been considered by the awarding officer and discussed in his award. The learned Subordinate Judge was certainly correct in his view that the said document should not have been rejected. But then according to us, the learned Subordinate Judge could have granted more than what is presently granted on the basis of that document itself. As already noticed, that document revealed a land value of Rs. 15686/- which could be easily rounded off to Rs. 16,000/- . But unlike the property covered by that document, the acquired property LAA.No.84/05 4 was enjoying the direct frontage of National Highway and nearness to a junction at National Highway 17 apart from its nearness to the main areas of Vadakara town. Taking into account all these plus points, we feel that the correct market value of the acquired property at the relevant time could have been Rs. 17,500/-. Accordingly, we refix the land value at Rs. 17,500/- ( Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred only) and award enhanced compensation to the appellant on the basis of such refixation. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23 (1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. But, in the circumstances, the parties will suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.84/05 5