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 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1295 of 2010 ----------------------------- LAR.215/07 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA ----------- APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMAR, MADATHIL PARAMBIL, PERINGALA, KAYAMKULAM. 2. PRASANNA KUMARI OF -DO- -DO- 3. USHA KUMARI OF -DO- -DO- 4. AJITH KUMAR OF -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 689 645. 2. SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM. 682 016. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1295 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants are in appeal. Their property in Kayamkulam village were acquired for the purpose of the Railways pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 31/12/2004. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.44,145/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the appellants/claimants relied mostly on Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A2 was a post notification document which was discarded rightly in our view by the learned Sub Judge. Ext.A1 was a pre-notification document. Ext.A1 reflected a land value of Rs.1,23,517.78/-. Ext.A1 was executed six months prior to the date of relevant Section 4 (1) notification. Ext.A1 was discarded by the court below on L. A. A. No.1295 of 2010 -2- the reason that Ext.A1 property unlike the property under acquisition was enjoying the frontage of a municipal road. Though we are in a position to justify the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in not placing complete reliance on Ext.A1, we feel that taking guidance from Ext.A1, the court below could have awarded more compensation than what is presently awarded Rs.62,278/- per Are. On a re- appraisal of the evidence and in our assessment, the market value of the land under acquisition can be reasonably re- fixed at Rs.77,253.75/- per Are (we round off the same to Rs.77,300/- per Are). 2. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, while calculating interest under Section 28, the Registry will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us in our order in L. A. A. No.1295 of 2010 -3- C.M.Application No.2125/10. Decree copy will be issued to the appellants only after ensuring that full court fee is paid and all the conditions in the above order are complied with. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-