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 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 604 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.81/1994 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------ 1. MEENAKSHI AMMA, D/O. NANI AMMA, AGED 84 YEARS, VELIYILPARAMBIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. (CLAIMANT NO.1). 2. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, S/O. PADMANABHAN PILLAI, AGED 70, DO. (CLAIMANT NO.2). 3. KAMALAM, D/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA, AGED 63, KAMALA NIVAS, DO. (ADDITIONAL CLAIMANT 2 (A)). BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN SRI.R.UDAYA JYOTHI SRI.M.M.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, CHERTHALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 604 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the claimant pertains to acquisition of land in Aroor village pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 15/02/1992 for the purpose of four laning of National Highway 47. The acquired property was situated in between Aroor junction and Keltron junction on NH 47. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.24,695/- per Are corresponding to Rs. 9993/- per cent. 2. Before the reference court, the appellant claimant got himself examined as AW1 and produced Exts.A1 and A2 documents. Apart from that, he took out a commission who filed Ext.X1 report and Ext.X1(a) plan. There was no counter evidence on the side of the respondent state. Ext.A1 was a post notification document and was rightly rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge from the reckoning for determination of the land value. Ext.A2 was a sale transaction LAA.No.604/04 2 dated more than one year previous to the date of section 4(1) notification and was in respect of a plot having extent of 9.795 cents. Ext.A2 revealed a land value of Rs. 43231/- per Are corresponding to Rs.17495/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge would reject Ext.A2 also from consideration on the reason that Ext.A2 property is situated some 2 ½ km. away from the acquired property, that the parties to Ext.A2 were not examined and also on the reason that the Advocate Commission's report regarding the relative values of Exts.A1 and A2 on the basis of inspection is not dependable. Ultimately, the learned Subordinate Judge would confirm the award passed by the land acquisition officer and answer the reference in that manner. 3. This appeal is preferred by the claimant assailing the decision of the reference court and in this appeal, the claimant has filed I.A.No.406/09 invoking Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking admittance of the judgment in L.A.R.No.83/94 of the same sub court and also the judgment in L.A.R.No.96/94 of the same sub court. 4. We have allowed that I.A. and those two judgments are LAA.No.604/04 3 marked as Exts.A3 and A4 respectively and received as evidence on the side of the claimants. Ext.A3 judgment in L.A.R.No.83/94 is in respect of acquisition of land pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification as in the present case and the land acquisition officer had awarded the same land value for the properties covered by Ext.A3 ( Rs. 24965/- per Are). Ext.A4 also pertains to acquisition for the same purpose and the land acquisition officer had awarded the same rate of land value of Rs. 24,695/- per Are for the properties covered by Ext.A4. But the date of Section 4(1) in Ext.A4 is shown as 26/06/1992. Though the learned counsel for the appellant Dr.V.N.Sankarjee would submit that the correct date of section 4(1) notification relating to Ext.A4 is also 15/02/1992, we are unable to accept that submission in the absence of records. 5. We have heard Dr.V.N.Sankarjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent. Sri.Sankarjee would assail the conclusions of the learned Subordinate Judge on the various grounds raised in the appeal memo. He would submit that at any rate Ext.A3 having attained LAA.No.604/04 4 finality, there is every justification for refixing the value of the acquired properties in this case also at Rs. 37,050/-, the refixed rate under Ext.A3. Sri.Sankarjee would place before us a copy of the judgment of this court in L.A.A.No.51/01 and submit that Ext.A3 has attained finality. The learned senior Government Pleader would resist the submissions of Dr.Sankarjee. 6. We have gone through the impugned judgment and we have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. One of the principles underlying Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act is is that a parity should be brought forth between the values awarded by the reference court in respect of properties which were treated as having same value by the land acquisition authority. Ext.A3 has attained finality and Ext.A3 is in respect of a property which according to the land acquisition officer was having the same value as the acquired property in this case. We are therefore of the view that there is justification for granting the same land value which was given to the party in Ext.A3 to the appellant also. Accordingly, allowing the appeal, we refix the value of the acquired property belonging to the LAA.No.604/04 5 appellant at Rs. 37050/- per Are corresponding to Rs. 14,993/- per cent. Thus the appellant is awarded enhanced land value at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per cent. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23 (2), 23(1)(A) and 28 for the enhanced land value being awarded under this judgment. The order in C.M.Appl.No.1230/04 will be annexed to this judgment and in view of that order, the enhanced compensation will not carry the statutory interest admissible under Section 28 during the period covered by that order. In the circumstances, the parties will suffer their costs throughout. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. LAA.No.604/04 6