IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 465 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.13/2000 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT. ----------------------- S.SATHI DEVI, D/O.SAROJINI, SARALAYAM, T.C.26/851, WOMENS COLLEGE ROAD, THYCAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.V.V.MATHEW SRI.G.S.MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT. -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LALTHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 490 OF 2004 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. Nos. 465 & 490 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their properties were acquired for construction of bridge across Thiruvananthapuram - Vizhinham Road. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 23-6-1999. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs.1,49,944/- per Are. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the land value by 3% and fixed Rs.1,54,442/- per Are. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Ext.A1 is a document dated 8-4-1996 which is nearly 3 years prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification, but it was not duly considered by the learned Sub Judge. It is contended that the property covered by EXt.A1 extending 5 cents was having direct road frontage and very near to the LAA. Nos.465 & 490 of 2004 -2- acquired land. That property was sold for a total consideration of Rs.5 lakhs, i.e., at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per cent. The vendor of Ext.A1 was examined as PW-2. He gave evidence to the effect that the land covered by Ext.A1 was reclaimed land where as the acquired land is a dry land which is situated in a more advantageous position and as such the land value should have been fixed more than Rs.1 lakh per cent. The learned senior Govt. Pleader justifies the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sub Judge that there was sudden decline in land value during 1996 at the time of notification and that was the reason why the land value shown in Ext.A1 at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh was not considered. There is no acceptable evidence to support that plea. We also notice that there was no serious challenge regarding the transaction evidenced by Ext.A1. PW-2 was a Gulf returnee. His evidence would show that he was in dire need of money and hence the property was sold at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per cent. The learned senior Govt. Pleader submits that the basis land also is very near to the acquired LAA. Nos.465 & 490 of 2004 -3- land and was similar in nature and similarly situated and so the value shown therein is to be taken into account. On a consideration of the entire evidence the value shown in Ext.A1, the transaction which took place three years prior to the notification is seen to be reasonable. We see no justification to discard the value shown therein. Accordingly we refix the land value of the property under acquisition at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per cent. To that extent both the appeals are allowed. The appellants are entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-