IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 1208 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.126/2003 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT IN THE LAR ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, (THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.,PWD (SC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS) DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. BASANTH BALAJI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN THE LAR ---------------------------------- S.RANI, D/O.KANAKAMMA, T.C. 17/2457, KANNIL KANNERU VEEDU, JAGATHY, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.R.MANOJ THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2009, ALONG WITH CO NO. 69 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LAA NO. 1208/2007 ORDER ON I.A. NO.3033/2007 IN L.A.A NO. 1208/2007 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE 09-12-2009 SD/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE rkc PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- L.A.Appeal No.1208 of 2007 & C.O.69 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The Government is in appeal against the judgment of the Reference Court and the claimant has filed a memorandum of Cross Objection. The acquisition was of land in Thycaud Village of Thiruvananthapuram District pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 6.11.2000 for the purpose of construction of Jagathy Bridge across the Killy River. The L.A.Officer included the property in category-B and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,71,700/- per Are. The Reference Court relying mainly on Ext.A2 document re-fixed the land value at Rs.5 lakhs per Are. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.Basant Balaji, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the appellant and those of addressed on behalf of Mr.Manoj, the learned counsel for the Cross Objector/Claimant. Mr.Basant submitted that the court below was not justified in relying on Ext.A2 which was not even properly proved before the Reference Court. Ext.A2, the LAA No.1208 of 2007 2 learned Government Pleader submitted, was in respect of a small bit of land. No commission had been taken out to prove the comparability between the property under acquisition and the two properties. All the submissions of Mr.Basant were resisted on behalf of the Cross Objector. It was submitted that the court below went wrong in not upgrading the category of the land under acquisition to category-A. We have considered the rival submissions. It is true that Ext.A2 document was not properly proved by examining the vendor or the vendee. But it is not suggested in cross objection of AW1 that Ext.A2 document is an artificial document brought into existence in anticipation of the land acquisition proceedings. Ext.A2 document was executed four years earlier. At the same time, we are not inclined to award the value reflected in Ext.A2, because it is a small bit of land purchased by a Doctor obviously for the purpose of establishing either a clinic or residence cum clinic. We believe that the Doctor became inclined to pay even slightly more than the correct market value at the relevant time. We are of the view that based on Ext.A2, the claimant can be awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,10,000/- per Are. LAA No.1208 of 2007 3 As for the Cross Objection, we do not find any evidence on the basis of which the request for category up gradation can be accepted. Significantly the claimant never took out a commission for substantiating the claim for category up gradation. The result to the above discussion is that the appeal preferred by the Government will stand allowed and Cross Objection will stand dismissed. The market value of the land under acquisition is Rs.4,10,000/- per Are. All statutory benefits admissible on the enhanced compensation to which the party becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment will be paid to the parties. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/