IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 1281 of 2000(A) --------------------------- LAR.90/1988 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT : RESPONDENT -------------- STATE OF KERALA BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.K. BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS --------------- 1. G. SREEDHARAN NAIR, THEVANNOOR HOUSE, KIZHAKKEKARA, KOTTARAKKARA (DIED). 2. CHELLAMMA, W/O. G. SREEDHARAN NAIR, DO. DO. 3. SARACHANDRAN, H.NO.768, THAMARASSERY VEEDU, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. VALSALA KUMARI, W/O. SARACHANDRAN, DO. DO. 5. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, H.NO.767, THAMARASSERY VEEDU, KOTTARAKKARA. 6. JALAJA KUMARI, W/O. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, DO. DO. 7. C. SCARIA, H.NO.768, THAMARASSERY VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKARA, KOTTARAKKARA. 8. P.A.NEELAKANDA KURUP, PALOOR VEEDU, THUNDANTHALA MURI, UMMANNOOR VILLAGE (DIED). 9. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS, THEVANNOOR HOUSE, KIZHAKKEKARA, KOTTARAKKARA. 10. K.S.SANTHAKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS, DO. DO. 11. K.S.PRASANNAKUMARI, DO. D0. 12. L.SUDHAKUMARI, AGED 33 YEARS, DO. DO. LA.App..No. 1281 of 2000(A) 2 13. SUDHEER RENJAN, DO. DO. 14. N. KUTTY AMMA, GOURIKUTTY AMMA, PALOOR VEEDU, NELLIKKUNNAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, 15. G. RADHAMMA, AGED 43 YEARS, DO. DO. 16. C. LEELAMONY AMMA, AGED 41 YEARS, DO. DO. 17. SYAMALA KUMARI, AGED 37 YEARS, DO. DO. 18. P.N. MOHANA KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, DO. DO. 19. G. JAYAKUMARI, AGED 30 YEARS, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R14 TO 19 SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR FOR R14 TO R19 SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R2,9 TO 13 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 5, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This appeal preferred by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Kottarakkara village for the purpose of construction of P & T Staff Quarter of the Post and Telegraph Department. The relevant sec.4(1) notification was published on 1.10.1980. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5741/- per Are corresponding to Rs.2323/- per cent, relying on the basis document. 2. Before the reference court, the evidence consisted of Ext.A1, copy of sale deed No.1798/1985 of the Sub Registry, Kottarakkara, Ext.C1 mahazar prepared by an advocate commissioner deputed by the court and Ext.C2 report submitted by that commissioner apart from the oral testimonies of Aws.1 and 2. L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 2 3. Ext.A1 was in respect of a property which took in a building also. Ext.A1 revealed a much higher land value than the rate granted by the land acquisition officer. The reference court, however, did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1 for the reason stated in the judgment. According to us, the reasons are good and the reference court was justified in not relying on Ext.A1. The reference court, at the instance of the claimants, looked into the files of the court pertaining to LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989. It was seen that in those two cases the court had re- fixed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent. The court also found that the properties in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989 were inferior to the acquired properties in this case,being partially filled up paddy fields. It was found that the acquired property was pucca dry land situated very near to the famous Ganapathi temple at Kottarakkara. Ultimately what the learned Sub Judge did was to grant the same value as revealed in the judgment in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989. 4. We have heard the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr. P.K. Babu and those of Smt. Bindu L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 3 Sreekumar and also the Senior counsel Mr. Achuthakurup, for the respondent. 5. Sri Babu submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the judgment in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989 was not justified. According to him the learned Subordinate Judge did not notice that those two judgments were in cases pursuant to acquisition on 5.8.1996 i.e. six years after the acquisition in the present case. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, deductions should have been made on the value awarded under those two judgments. 6. Mr. Achuthakurup, per contra, submitted that unlike the property in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989, the acquired property in this case was pucca dry land situated in the most important area of the town being in close proximity to the famous Ganapathi temple. Considering the superiority of the land, more than what was awarded to the parties in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989 should have been awarded to the claimant in this case. 7. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and we have carefully gone through the L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 4 judgment. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge who was bound to re-fix the market value had no better document than the court's own award in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989 to rely for determination of the market value. However, we notice that the relevant sec.4(1) notification in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989 was published six years after the sec.4(1) notification in this case. We have also noticed that the properties in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989 were inferior to the acquired property in this case. Relying on the judgment in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989 and taking into account the superiority of the acquired property, we hold that the value of the property similar to the acquired property as on 5.8.1986 would be Rs.13000/- per cent. But deductions are to be made for the time lag between the sec.4(1) notification in the present case and the sec.4(1) notification in LAR 22/1989 and 23/1989. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Cor. Ltd. v. R. Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008 SAR (civil) 894), it will be necessary to make a deduction of atleast 60% on the above fixed amount of Rs.13,000/-. On the facts of this case we are not L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 5 inclined to make so much of deduction since we find that the acquired property is situated in a more important area of the town and has commercial potentialities in the maximum. According to us, a sum of Rs.8500/- per cent would have been the correct market value of the property at the relevant time. Allowing the appeal, we re-fix the market value of the property at Rs.8500/- per cent. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible to him under secs.23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible on account of our re-fixation. In the circumstances, the parties will suffer their costs throughout. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/- L.A.A. 1281 of 2000 6 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------ L.A.A.1281 Of 2000 JUDGMENT ------------------------------ 5.6.2009