IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 115 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.60/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.SUB DIVISION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.S.AMBIKA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 3 --------------------------------------------- 1. T.SAVITHRI ANTHERJANAM, THIRUVALLAKKOTT ILLAM,CHERUTHURUTHY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LA,THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. P.N.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, ALONG WITH LAA. 136/10 ETC. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. Nos. 115, 136, 137 & 138 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. These are all appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority. The land was in Cheruthuruthy Village. Acquisition was for the purpose of constructing a water tank for the requisitioning authority the Kerala Water Authority. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 25- 5-2003 and the LAO awarded land value for the garden land at the rate of Rs.6172/- per Are based on Ext.A1. Before the Reference Court the claimants produced Ext.A1 to A3. A2 and A3 are post notification documents. The Court below did not place reliacne on A2 and A3 for the reason that they are post notification documents. However, taking the view that A2 and A3 can be adopted as a guide, what the learned Sub Judge did was to grant enhancement upto 103% and re-fix the market value at the rate of Rs.12500/- per Are. -2- The claimants in support of the claim submitted the documents. There was commission report also. The commissioner had recommended for much higher value after comparing the property under acquisition with the properties covered by Ext.A1, A2 and A3. A1 was the basis property itself. The commissioner reported that the property covered by A1 is much inferior than the properties under acquisition and hence the properties under acquisition are liable to be awarded much higher value than what is awarded. It is seen that the learned Subordinate Judge has applied the rule of thumb for awarding enhancement at the rate of 103% over what was awarded by the LAO. Normally we do not approve the above action of a learned Sub Judge granting so much of increase by rule of thumb. The properties were in Cheruthuruthy, very near to the Kerala Kalamandalam in Vallathol Nagar and the properties were situated nearly a distance of 300 to 350 metres from the -3- National Highway from Thrissur to Kozhikode. The property was garden land enjoying road frontage. Having regard to the importance of the area where the property is situated and had nearness to the Kerala Kalamandalam we feel that the above rate of Rs.12500/- per Are fixed by the Reference Court for the properties as on 25-5-2003 cannot be said to be very high. Hence according to us, the requisitioning authority cannot have any legitimate grievance regarding the rate presently fixed. We dismiss these appeals and post these cases tomorrow as to be spoken to along with LAA. Nos. 52, 53 and 54 of 2010, the appeals preferred by the claimants. The parties will suffer their respective costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/- -4-