IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 308 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.59/2001 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------- 1. ABDULRAHIMAN, S/O.KALLATRA, ABDUL KHADER HAJI, MELPARAMBA, KASARAGOD. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR FOR R2 SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA FOR R1 SRI.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 323 OF 2009 & CONNECTED CASE THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos.308,323,394/2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. All these appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Kalanadu Village for the purpose of construction of railway track between Kasaragod to Trikkaripur. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 19/7/1999. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the land into two, as garden lands and wet lands. For garden lands, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5997/- per cent. For wet lands, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1739/- per cent. The Reference Court in the first instance would refix the value of lands by 15,000/- per cent. The Railway preferred appeal and considering that appeal, this court set aside the judgment and decree of the reference court and remanded the LAR case to the reference court. After remand, the impugned judgment has been passed refixing the value of lands under acquisition uniformly at Rs.28,000/- per cent. 2. We have heard the submissions of the learned senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, Sri. R. Sathish LAANo.323/2009 & others 2 Kumar learned standing counsel for the Railways and those of Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Sri.Imthiyaz Ahamed and Sri.Shiraz Abdulla learned counsel for the claimants. 3. Our attention was drawn by the learned Government Pleader to the judgment of the reference court previously and to the impugned judgment. The learned senior Government Pleader would submit that the enhancement granted by the reference court is excessive. It is relying on Ext.A12 judgment that land value has been refixed by the reference court at the rate of Rs.28,000/- per cent. According to the learned counsel, it is clear from Ext.A12 judgment itself that Ext.A12 property was much more superior to the property under acquisition in this case. The Land Acquisition Officer himself had awarded much higher value than what is awarded to the properties under Acquisition for A12 property. Therefore, the court below was not at all justified in awarding the same rate as awarded under Ext.A12 for these properties. The learned senior Government Pleader further submitted that, at any rate, the court below is not justified in awarding the same rate for garden lands as well as for the wet lands. LAANo.323/2009 & others 3 4. Submissions of the Government Pleader were supported by the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. Resisting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, it was submitted by Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar that the Government had never raised the contention at any stage of the proceedings so far that the reference court erred in awarding uniform rate for garden lands and wet lands. Though description in the basic records is as wet lands, the properties were actually lying as reclaimed dry lands. Ext.A12 was a relevant judgment, according to the learned counsel. Ext.A12 was in respect of acquisition two years prior to the present Section 4(1) notification. There is no warrant for interference. 5. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. According to us, the court below was not at all justified in awarding uniform value for lands which were treated by the Land Acquisition officer as garden lands and as wet lands. There necessarily has to be difference between the value of garden lands and wet lands. The court below has not given any reason as to uniform value is given for garden lands as well as wet lands. So also, we feel that the evidence available on record will LAANo.323/2009 & others 4 not justify the enhancement presently granted by the reference court. True, Ext.A12, was in Kalanadu village itself and was pursuant to acquisition some two years prior to the present acquisition. At the same time, it is seen that Ext. A12 property was having direct frontage of the State Highway and even two years earlier the Land Acquisition Officer deemed it fit to award much higher value for lands involved in Ext.A12. We are of the view that the issue must be reconsidered by the court below. We set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand the LAR case back to the reference court. The Reference Court will afford opportunity to all the parties to adduce whatever further evidence they want to and will determine the market value of both garden lands as well as wet lands separately. Revised judgment as directed above will be passed by the reference court at the earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk