IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 1517 of 2009(D) ---------------------------------- LAR.18/2004 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------- PUTHUKOLLI MOHAMMED S/O. ABDULLAH PILAKKAL, PAYYANAD.P.O. BY SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, MANJERI, MUNICIPALITY. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN R-2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, ALONG WITH L.A.A. NO. 1518 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.1517/09, 1518/09, 1542/09 & 1572/09, 82/10, 344/10 & Cross Objection No.84/2010, 635/10 & 1113/10 & 3 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 Judgment Pius C.Kuriakose, J. L.A.A.Nos.1517/09, 1518/09, 1542/09, 1572/09, 82/10, 635/10, 1113/10 and 3/11 are all appeals preferred by the claimants. L.A.A.No.344/2010 is the appeal preferred by the Government and the claimant has filed a Cross Objection (Cross Objection No.84/2010) in that appeal. All these appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri in L.A.R.Nos.5/04, 6/04, 9/04, 10/04, 12/04, 13/04, 18/04, 19/04 and 20/04. These cases pertain to acquisition of land in Manjeri and Payyanad villages situated within the area of Manjeri Municipality. The total extent involved in all these cases is 25 Ares. The acquisition was at the behest of the Manjeri Municipality for the purpose of establishment of Manjeri Municipal Stadium. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1481/- per cent based on the basis LAA 1517/2009 ETC. 2 document, namely, document No.4534 of 1997 of the S.R.O.Manjeri. Before the reference court, the appellants produced Exts.A1 and A5, two documents which reflected much higher land value, i.e., at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent. The contention of the Government in respect of all these two documents was that these documents had been brought into existence showing an inflated value for the purpose of taking a higher claim in prospective land acquisition proceedings. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment has upheld the above contention of the Government. Ultimately what the learned Subordinate Judge did was to rely on the basis document itself and to give additions for passage of time till the date of promulgation of Section 4(1) notification. Finally, the court below fixed the market value at Rs.2000/- per cent. In the appeals and the Cross Objection preferred by the claimants, they contend that the market value fixed by the court below is not sufficient whereas in the appeal preferred by the Government, the contention raised is that the value fixed by the court is excessive. 2. Mr.M.A.Abdul Hakhim, learned counsel for the appellants LAA 1517/2009 ETC. 3 in most of the appeals and the respondent in the Cross Objection would address arguments based on the grounds raised in the respective appeal memoranda filed by the claimants-appellants. The learned Government Pleader would address arguments on the basis of the appeal memorandum filed by the Government. We also heard the submissions of Mr.M.P.Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority. He would support all the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. 3. Mr.M.A.Abdul Hakhim, learned counsel would submit that the court below has discarded Exts.A2 and A5. According to him, Exts.A2 and A5 are genuine transactions and it was not correct on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to have accepted the contention of the Government that they are artificial documents. Mr.Hakhim further submitted that even if the basis document is to be relied on, since the properties are within the area of Manjeri Municipality, additions at the rate of 15% per year should have been allowed in which case the land value comes to Rs.2130/- per cent. Mr.Hakhim would submit that it was in evidence through the report of the Commissioner that the LAA 1517/2009 ETC. 4 acquired properties were superior to the properties covered by the basis document. There is clear evidence to the effect that the properties situated on the southern side of Manjeri-Pandikad road had more potentialities than on the northern side like the basis property. This vital aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the requisitioning authority would however support the impugned judgment. According to them, what is granted under the impugned judgment is excessive. 4. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed before us and having scanned the impugned judgment and the material items of evidence, particularly, the Commissioner's report, we feel that due additions have not been given by the learned Subordinate Judge for the superiority enjoyed by the acquired properties over the basis property. In our view, on a better assessment based on the same evidence, taking into account all relevant inputs including the superiority of the acquired property due to its location being on the southern side of the road mentioned above, the land value of the acquired LAA 1517/2009 ETC. 5 properties can be reasonably refixed at Rs.2250/- per cent. Accordingly, we refix the land value for the acquired property at Rs.2250/- per cent. The appellants-claimants and the cross objector will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. If there was delay in filing the appeals on time, the period of delay will be excluded from the reckoning for providing interest under Section 28 of the Act. The appeals filed by the claimants and the Cross Objection filed by the 1st respondent-claimant in the appeal filed by the Government will stand allowed, but, without any order as to cost. The appeal filed by the Government will stand dismissed, but, without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd LAA 1517/2009 ETC. 6 LAA 1517/2009 ETC. 7