IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1726 of 2007(B) -------------------------------- LAR.348/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- P.C.THOMAS, KRIPA NILAYAM, 32/1804-A, NETAJI ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, F.A.C.T., UDYOGAMANDAL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1344 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Both these appeals are preferred by the claimants. LAA.1726/07 is directed against the judgment of the Reference Court in LAR.348/97 and LAA.1344/09 is directed against the judgment of the Reference Court in LAR.313/97. The properties were acquired by the Government at the instance of FACT for the purpose of Ammonia Plant Replacement Project. The properties were in Eloor village. 2. For the properties which are involved in LAA.1726/07, the Land Acquisition Officer L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 -2- awarded land value at the rate of Rs.10303/- per Are. The Reference Court in the first instance would enhance the land value by 162%. However, considering the appeal preferred by the Government, the judgment of the Reference Court was set aside and the LAR was remanded to the Reference Court. The impugned judgment is passed pursuant to the remand judgment. Under the impugned judgment, the Reference Court has confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer thereby declining any enhancement to the claimants. 3. For the properties involved in LAA.1344/09 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.11,730/- per Are. For those L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 -3- properties also the Reference Court in the first instance granted enhancement by 162%. But that judgment was also set aside in appeal and under the impugned judgment which is passed pursuant to that remand judgment, the Reference Court has answered the reference in the negative thereby declining any enhancement to the claimants. 4. Even though several documents including court judgments pertaining to acquisition of the property in the same village for the purpose of the same Requisitioning Authority were relied on, the Reference Court did not become inclined to place any reliance on those documents for the reason that a dependable report regarding the comparability of those properties and the L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 -4- properties under acquisition is not available. 5. In these appeals various grounds have been raised and reference is made to the various court judgments relied on by the claimants before the court below in support of their claim for enhancement. 6. We have heard submissions of Sri.V.V.Sidharthan, the learned counsel for the appellant in LAA.1726/07 and Sri.C.Chandrasekharan, the learned counsel for the appellant in LAA.1344/09. We have also heard Smt.Thushara James for the Requisitioning Authority and the Senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha for the Government. While Sri.Sidharthan and Sri.Chandrasekharan assailed the decision of the Reference Court not to L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 -5- rely on the documents produced by the claimants and to decline any enhancement to the claimants Smt.Thushara and Smt.Latha would support the impugned judgments on the basis of the reasons stated therein. Sri.V.V.Sidharthan conceded that the court judgments relied on by the claimants before the court below were delivered in cases pertaining to acquisition pursuant to other notifications. But he drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in LAA.957/2001 confirming the judgment of the Reference Court in LAR.314/97. The learned counsel placed before us for perusal copy of the judgment of the Reference Court in LAR.314/97 as well as the appellate judgment in LAA.957/01. It was submitted that L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 -6- unlike the judgment produced before the court below the judgment in LAR.314/97 as confirmed by the judgment in LAA.957/01 is in respect of acquisition for the same purpose pursuant to same notification. 7. Smt.Thushara would submit that the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for not placing reliance on the documents produced by the appellants are excellent and there is no infirmity about them. She took exception to our placing any reliance on judgment in LAR.314/97 and LAA.957/01. According to her, the appellants had not placed any reliance on these judgments before the court below and they are not entitled to spring a surprise on the L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 -7- Requisitioning Authority relying on these judgments at this stage. 8. Smt.Latha, the learned Senior Government Pleader would support the submissions of Smt.Thushara. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the impugned judgment. We feel that if the documents produced before the Reference Court were the only items of evidence there was some justification for the Reference Court in not placing complete reliance on those documents since there is no cogent evidence in the form of a Commission Report or so, on the basis of which it should be held that the properties under acquisition are L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 -8- comparable to the properties covered by those documents. We notice the judgment of the Reference Court in LAR.314/97 and the judgment of this Court in LAA.957/01-D. We are convinced on a perusal of those two judgments that they pertain to acquisition of land in the same village for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. But we find that the land covered by those judgments were in a superior category than even the land involved in LAA.1344/09 which was superior to the land involved in LAA.1726/07. It is not disputed before us that the judgment in LAA.957/01 has attained finality. It is true that the appellant has not placed any reliance on the above judgment or for that matter on the L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 -9- judgment of the Reference Court in LAR.314/97 before the court below. But there is no denying the fact that the above judgment has considerable probative value while determining the correct market value payable to the appellants for their properties which were acquired. The legislative objective underlying Section 28A is that there should be a parity between the ultimate values awarded to persons whose properties are acquired pursuant to same notification subject to the difference in value between various types of properties acquired. Keeping in mind that principle and the fact that the judgment in LAR.314/97 has attained finality, we are of the view that there is justification for allowing both these appeals. At L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 -10- the same time, the appellants cannot aspire for the same value as is awarded to the party in LAR.314/97 in view of the superiority of the property covered by that judgment over the properties covered by these two appeals. Keeping all inputs which are relevant for determining the market value of the property acquired in exercise of powers of eminent domain, we re-fix the land value of the properties involved in LAA.1726/07 at Rs.25,760/- per Are. In the same way, we re-fix the value of the lands involved in LAA.1344/09 at Rs.29,325/- per Are. 9. Both these appeals will stand allowed as above, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. The appellants will be entitled for enhanced compensation on the basis of re- L. A. A. Nos.1726 of 2007 & 1344 of 2009 -11- fixation done as above. On the total enhanced compensation to which the appellants become eligible, they will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 10. As for LAA.1726/07, we uphold ground Nos.6, 7, and 8 and hold unhesitatingly that the aspersion which the learned Judge has attempted to cast on the learned counsel who was appearing for the claimant before the court below, was absolutely unwarranted. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-