IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 407 of 2002() ------------------------- LAR.112/1998 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN K.K.,S/O.KUNJI KRISHNAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,PULLUT NORTH,KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JAYASREE,D/O.SUDHAKARAN K.K., KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,PULLUT NORTH, KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR. 3. JYOTHISH S/O.KOLLAMPARAMBIL SUDHAKARAN, PULLUT NORTH,KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR 4. JAISON S/O.KOLLAMPARAMBIL SUDHAKARAN, PULLUT NORTH,KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAYASREE D/O.KOLLAMPARAMBIL SUDHAKARAN,PULLUT NORTH, KODUNGALLUR. 5. JAYAKRISHNAN,S/O.KOLLAMPARAMBIL SUDHAKARAN,PULLUT NORTH,KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL SRI.K.P.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 2. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (G.C.D.A.) KADAVANTHARA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.SATHYA RAJAN,KADAVANTHARA,KOCHI-20 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009 ALONG WITH LAA NO. 161 OF 2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.Nos. 407/2002 & 161/2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT C.K.Abdul Rehim, J. Claimants as well as the State have filed appeals against the judgment in L.A.R.No.112/1998 of the Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. 1.49 Ares of dry land and 23.63 Ares of wet land comprised in Elamkulam village is acquired for the purpose of constructing 'International stadium' at Kaloor. The first claimant was examined before the reference court as AW1. At the time of acquisition, the entire land was remaining as dry land and was having Ponoth road frontage, is the claim of AW1. It was also submitted that the land is situated only 75 meters away from the National Highway and it was having close proximity to very important public institutions. According to AW1, the land had high commercial importance during the relevant time. The claimants produced Exts.A1 to A3 Sale Deeds and claimed refixation of the land value in accordance with the value set forth therein. LAA.No.407/02 & 161/03 2 2. The reference court found that the property covered by Exts.A1 to A3 are not similar properties nor they are similarly situated. It has come out in evidence that the property covered under Ext.A1 is having frontage to National Highway, whereas the acquired property is on the back side of the Stadium having frontage only to Ponoth Road. It has come out in evidence that the properties covered under Exts.A2 and A3 are properties situated far away from the acquired property in a highly commercially important area of M.G.Road at Ernakulam. 3. However, the reference court found that the classification adopted by the land acquisition officer with respect to the wet land portion is not justifiable. Relying on the Mahazer, it is found that both the dry portion and wet portion formed a single block and the dry portion had Ponoth Road frontage. Hence the reference court found it proper to include the wet land portion in a separate category, rather than including the same in category No.VI, which obviously is that of wet lands having access only through path ways. 4. The reference court took note of the enhancement of compensation awarded in L.A.R.No.50/1998 series cases, with respect to lands acquired under the same notification. In L.A.R.No.50/98, the LAA.No.407/02 & 161/03 3 land value with respect to IVth category was enhanced from Rs.64,900/- per Are to Rs.82,296/- per Are. Taking note of the above fact, the value for dry land which is included in Vth category is refixed by making a 10% cut thereof. The reference court fixed land value for the wet land by allowing a 45% cut on the value fixed for the Vth category of land. Thus, for the dry portion enhancement at the rate of Rs. 16866/- per Are, and for the wet portion enhancement at the rate of Rs. 16136/- per Are, was allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Claimant vehemently contended that Ext.A1 document is with respect to a property which is situated in front of the acquired property and the same ought to have been considered as basis for refixing the value. Considering the reasoning rendered by the reference court that, the property covered under Ext.A1 is having frontage to National Highway and the same is not similar or similarly situated, we are not in a position to accept the said argument. Admittedly, properties under Exts.A2 and A3 are situated far away from the acquired property at a place having much commercial importance. Hence we feel that the basis at which the reference court refixed the land value is quiet reasonable and LAA.No.407/02 & 161/03 4 acceptable. 6. Learned counsel also contended that, having regard to the fact that the acquisition is made for constructing “International Stadium”, the enhancement should have been allowed more liberally, the purpose of acquisition being one could not be termed as “ socialistic purpose”. We are afraid, whether we can entertain such a contention in view of the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, which prohibits taking into consideration of the purposes of acquisition in order to determine valuation of the acquired properties. On an over all scanning of the impugned judgment, we feel that the valuation refixed by the reference court is quite adequate and reasonable. Hence both the appeals are dismissed. Parties will bear their respective costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. LAA.No.407/02 & 161/03 5