IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 LA.App..No. 411 of 2010(C) ------------------------------- LAR.85/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.1: --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA , REP BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN (SR.) RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS & R2: ---------------------------------------- 1. ELIZABETH, D/O.SABARI MATHU, JAI BHAVAN, MOONNAMMOODU, KODUNGANOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSTRCTION ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEERING DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R2 SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.411 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the Government is the judgment of the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The property was in Peroorkkada village within the area of Trivandrum Corporation. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 22/04/04. The purpose was setting up of expansion programme of composite group and IISU of ISRO. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.44,370/- per Are relying on the basis document. Before the Reference Court, the L. A. A. No.411 of 2010 -2- claimant produced Ext.A1 document. Ext.A1 document was executed one and a half months subsequent to the date of Section 4(1) notification. It was AW1, the claimant alone who adduced oral evidence before the court below. It is seen that no serious cross examination was made on AW1 regarding his claim based on Ext.A1. Ext.A1 reflected a value of Rs.5,12,824/- per Are. The learned Subordinate Judge would rely on Ext.A1 and fix the value of property under acquisition at Rs.5 lakh per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised assailing the decision. Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior government Pleader would address arguments based on the grounds. She drew our attention to the judgment L. A. A. No.411 of 2010 -3- of the Supreme Court in G.M., Oil & Natural Gas Cor. Ltd. v. R. Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008 SAR (Civil) 894). She submitted that when the basis document was available as a pre-notification document, the court below was not at all justified in relying on a post notification document. She highlighted that barring the oral evidence of AW1, there is no evidence on the basis of which the court below could conclude that property covered by Ext.A1 and the property under acquisition were comparable. She therefore, requested that the impugned judgment be set aside and the award of the Land Acquisition Officer be confirmed. 3. The submissions of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan were opposed by Sri.G.S.Reghunath. Sri.G.S.Reghunath submitted that the property L. A. A. No.411 of 2010 -4- covered by Ext.A1 was situated just on the opposite side of the road on which the acquired property was situated. He submitted that the acquired property was situated within the area of Trivandrum Corporation. According to him, Vattiyoorkkavu where the property is situated is a very important area of Trivandrum Corporation and at the relevant time nobody could have even dreamed of getting property at the rate granted by the Reference Court. He pointed out that there was no serious examination at all on AW1 which was to the effect that A1 property and the properties under acquisition were similar in all respects. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We do find L. A. A. No.411 of 2010 -5- merit in the submission of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the senior Government Pleader that the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having relied on a post notification document was not proper. We also agree with her when she submits that in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the comparability of the two properties such as commission report based on local inspection, it was unsafe to have proceeds on the basis that Ext.A1 was a comparable property. At the same time, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. We keep in mind our own judgments in several other cases pertaining to acquisition of land in Trivandrum city Corporation. We feel that the rate ultimately granted under the impugned judgment cannot be L. A. A. No.411 of 2010 -6- said to be excessive having regard to the importance of the area where the property is situated. It is also worthwhile to note that absolutely no counter oral evidence was adduced on the Government's side. We also notice that there was no serious cross examination on AW1. 5. Hence, the result is that the appeal fails and will stand dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-