IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1119 of 2010(D) --------------------------- LAR.30/2004 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. RAJU, S/O.RAGHAVAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MAROOR, ENADIMANGALAM. 2. C.KARTHIKEYAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, CHUNDANI HOUSE, NADAVARAMBU DESOM, VELLOKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. MEENAKSHY AMMA, DAUGHTER OF GOWRIYAMMA, ONAMPILLIL HOUSE, MANGADU MURI, (IST CLAIMANT IS REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BELRAJ, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, BEENA BHAVAN, MAROOR MURI, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, ADOOT TALUK). BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE-REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-680 091. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.T.HANKAPPAN SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1119 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their properties were acquired for the establishment of Food Processing Unit of KINFRA. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 19/12/2003. The Land Acquisition Officer included the properties under acquisition in category 2 i.e. properties enjoying the direct frontage of Estate Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,400/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment refixed the land value at Rs.8000/- per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised and it is even claimed that the properties in question were enjoying the direct frontage of Kayamkulam – Punalur road, a State Highway and hence are eligible to be included in category 1. 3. On this appeal coming up for admission, as directed by us, Sri. G.S.Reghunath, Standing Counsel for requisitioning LAA.No.1119/2010 2 authority has taken notice and we have heard the submissions of Sr.Philip M.Varghese, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent -requisitioning authority and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader. 4. We notice common judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.107/2007 series, under which this court refixed the value of large extent of properties acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the very same notification. We find that under that common judgment the value of the properties in category 2 has been refixed at Rs.8,800/- per Are. We also find that in case of large extents i.e. extents of more than 1 Acre, a cut of 10% has been made due to the largeness of the area, relying on the Supreme Court's Judgments in Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Maha Singh and another (AIR 1997 SC 2553), Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyothi Rao and others (AIR 2007 SC 614) and Gajjan Singh and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC 2417). We find that the properties under acquisition in this case is a large extent. 5. Mr.Philip M.Varghese, learned counsel for the appellants LAA.No.1119/2010 3 drew our attention to the common judgment. The learned counsel argued that the properties under acquisition were eligible to be included in category 1 and not in category 2. According to him, there is a clear finding by the learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment that the properties are eligible to be included in category 1. The learned counsel argued further that, at any rate, the advocate commissioner has clearly reported that the properties under acquisition are enjoying the direct frontage of Kayamkulam – Punalur State Highway, thus according to him, there is every justification for including the properties in category 2. Both Sri.G.S.Reghunath and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan would oppose the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment as well as through the commissioner's report, a copy of which was placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellants himself. We are convinced that the submissions of the learned counsel that the properties enjoying the direct frontage of State Highway and that it is so found is not correct. In fact, the LAA.No.1119/2010 4 finding if at all is only to the effect that the acquired lands were rubber plantation and are enjoying road frontage and lies very near to the Elamannoor junction of Kayalmkulam – Punlur road. That the acquired properties were enjoying the estate road frontage is a conceded position. The further finding by the learned Subordinate Judge is only to the effect that the properties are situated near to a particular junction on the State Highway. There is no finding that the properties were enjoying direct frontage of a State highway. 7. A reading of the commissioner's report will show that the availability or otherwise of direct frontage of State Highway was not an issue relegated to the commissioner. The commissioner's report is silent as to the availability of road frontage. Going through the impugned judgment also, we find that the appellants had not raised a specific claim that their properties are eligible to be included in a higher category than category 2 in which it is included by the LAO. 8. We have to proceed on the basis that the properties are included in category 2 . When the common judgment in L.A.A. No.107/2007 is followed, the value of the properties will have to LAA.No.1119/2010 5 be refixed at Rs.8,800/- per Are. But as the acquired properties are in large extent, deduction of 10% will have to be made, which means that the value of the property will have to be fixed below the rate presently fixed under the impugned judgment. According to us, it will not fair or just to do so. We dismiss the appeal confirming the impugned judgment and decree. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk