IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 404 of 2009(A) -------------------------- LAR.95/2005 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT(S): IST CLAIMANT -------------------------- PAPPAN PRABHAKARAN, KANDANKERIL NIKARTHIL, K.R.PURAM P.O., PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA. 2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO. 335, PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.JOBY CYRIAC(NO MEMO) SRI.D.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI(NO MEMO) SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R3 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R3 SRI.S.A.ANAND FOR R3 SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 6/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- L.A.ANo.404 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The 1st claimant is the appellant. The land was in Pallippuram Village, Cherthala Taluk. The acquisition was for the purpose of KSIDC's Industrial Growth Centre. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 24.1.1997. In this appeal the claim is confined to the correct value to be awarded for 6.47 Ares of land which was treated by the Land Acquisition Officer to be 'water logged area' (Vellakkuzhy)'. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs.494/- per Are for the above portion. 2. The contention which was raised by the appellant in respect of this portion was that the value of this portion will have to be determined by deducting reclamation charges from the value of corresponding dry lands. Exts.A1 to A3 documents were produced for proving the reclamation charges. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to adopt the principle mooted by the appellant for arriving at the value of property which was treated by the Land Acquisition Officer as 'water logged area'. In the absence of evidence the reference court confirmed the value which had been awarded by L.A.ANo.404 of 2009 2 the Land Acquisition Officer. In this appeal various grounds are raised and the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the correct method for arriving at the market value of the above portion of the acquired property described as water logged area or Vellakkuzhy is to deduct reclamation charges from the value awarded by the Court for corresponding dry lands namely interior dry lands. When calculated in that manner the value of each Are of Vellakkuzhy will come to Rs.4942/-. The counsel requested that the appeal be allowed re-fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.4,942/-. The learned counsel also submitted that the 3rd respondent Pallippuram Village Service Co-operative Bank had no interest in the property in question and hence should not have been impleaded as a claimant. Mr.Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel for the requisitioning authority submitted that this Court has in L.A.A No.1099/2010 and other cases re-fixed the value of these types of lands (water logged area) at Rs.750/- per Are. The principle of arriving at the value of Vellakkuzhy by deducting reclamation charges from the value of corresponding dry lands is not a correct principle. If such principle is followed the same will result in heavy loss to the requisitioning authority. The submissions of Mr.Joby Cyriac were supported by Mr.C.R.Shyam Kumar, the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent was unable to show how the 3rd L.A.ANo.404 of 2009 3 respondent can claim interest upon the properties. In fact the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent sought time to seek further instructions from the 3rd respondent, we are not inclined to grant time in this case, where the 3rd respondent has not preferred any appeal. The 3rd respondent did neither appear before the reference Court nor have preferred any appeal against the present award . 3. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The only question which arises for decision is as to whether the method mooted by the appellant for arriving at the correct market value of the properties under acquisition, the method of deducting reclamation charges from the value of corresponding dry lands can be applied in this case. According to us the above the question can be answered only in the negative. Section 23 of the LA Act mandates that the market value of the property under acquisition as on the date of Section 4(1) notification is to determined from the point of view of a willing seller and willing purchaser dealing at arms length. When so determined it is the market value of the property as it was on the date of Section 4 (1) notification which is to be fixed. As on the date of Section 4(1) notification the property was watter logged area or Vellakkuzhy. In the absence of any material made available on record by the appellant before the reference court, the learned Sub Judge was justified in L.A.ANo.404 of 2009 4 confirming the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. But we notice the judgment of this Court in L.A.A No.1099/2010 dealing with fixation of market value of identical property. We follow that judgment and allow this appeal and re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.750/- per Are. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(ii), 23(i)(a) and Section 28 of the LA Act. The appellant will be entitled for all proportionate cost also. The decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee is paid by the appellant. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab