IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 LA.App..No. 686 of 2001(B) -------------------------- LAR.14/1994 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- THAMARACHALIL YOHANNAN, THAMARACHALIL HOUSE, POOMALA P.O., SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA)/LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.686 of 2001 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 Judgment Balakrishnan, J. The claimant is in appeal. His property measuring 1.3520 hectares comprised in different survey numbers of Nenmeni Village in Sulthan Bathery taluk were acquired for construction of E.E.C.Assisted Agricultural Market in Sulthan Bathery. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 8.11.1992. It is stated that except 14 cents, the entire remaining lands were wet lands. For the wet lands which were having road frontage, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.765/- per cent. For the remaining wet land, the land value was fixed at Rs.700/- per cent. For the dry land, the land value was fixed at Rs.875/- per cent. Dissatisfied by the compensation awarded, the appellant and others sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. This case along with other cases were tried jointly. A.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exts.R1 to R8 were LAA 686/01 2 marked. The Commissioners report was marked as Ext.C1 and the Commissioners were examined as C.Ws.1 and 2. 2. The reference court refixed the land value for the entire wet land at Rs.2000/- per cent. For the dry land, the land value was refixed at Rs.3500/- per cent. Complaining of inadequacy of the compensation granted, this appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the court below was not justified in rejecting Exts.A1 and A3 sale deeds which reflected the real market value in respect of comparable lands. In Ext.A1, the land value was shown as Rs.5500/- per cent. Ext.A1 was not relied upon by the court below since in the Commissioner's report it was stated that a small portion of the land covered by Ext.A1 was used as a drying yard. With regard to Ext.A3, it was stated that 1 acre and 85 cents of land covered thereunder was acquired for bus stand at Chunkam in Sulthan Bathery town, whereas the property under acquisition was situated far away from Ext.A3 property. In Ext.A3, the land value was shown as Rs.5400/- per cent. Of course, the land covered by Ext.A3 was also a wet land. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.A2 LAA 686/01 3 sale deed dated 25.3.1992 should have been relied upon by the court below. It is pointed out that Ext.A2 was relied upon by the reference court in another case. The copy of the judgment in another case was marked as Ext.A6. It was stated that in Ext.A6, the market value of the land was fixed at Rs.3000/- per cent. The land value shown in Ext.A2 is Rs.4000/- per cent. The court below found that the extent of the property covered by Ext.A2 is only 26 cents, whereas the extent of the wet land acquired in this case is 3 acres and 20 cents. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the fact that Section 4(1) notification was issued about 8 months after Ext.A2 sale deed also is an additional factor in favour of the claimant. The court below fixed the value in respect of the wet land at Rs.2000/- per cent though in respect of the property acquired in other cases and in Ext.A6 the land value was fixed at Rs.3000/- per cent. 5. The land value was reduced to Rs.2000/- per cent taking note of the largeness of the area involved. Taking note of the fact that Ext.A2 was about 8 months prior to Section 4(1) notification and at the same time giving reduction towards largeness of the area involved, we find that the land value in respect of the wet LAA 686/01 4 land can be refixed at Rs.3000/- per cent. There is no acceptable evidence to give enhancement in respect of the value fixed for dry land. Hence, this appeal is allowed to the extent of refixing the land value in respect of the total extent of the wet land acquired from the possession of the appellant-claimant in this case at Rs.3000/- per cent. It is open to the Government to file application for correction, if any mistake has crept in, in the extent of land made mention in the impugned judgment. The appellant-claimant is entitled to get all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd LAA 686/01 5 LAA 686/01 6