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 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 1255 of 2009() -------------------------------- LAR.154/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, IHRD SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,IHRD SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED,SC,IHRD RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & IST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAYA VARMA, W/O.MURALIDHARA VARMA THAMPAN, MAYA BHAVAN, KALLELEBHAGAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, S/O.PARAMESWARA KURUP, KOTTA VEEDU,KALLELEBHAGAM MURI, KALLELEBHAGAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLYVILLAGE 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI.PRATHEESH.P R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHEAL GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.T.LILLY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1257/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.1255/09, 1257/09, 1266/09, 1281/09, 1282/09, 1283/09, 1284/09, 1524/09, 1525/09, 1582/09, 1584/09, 1585/09, 1586/09, 1587/09, 1588/09, 98/10 & 159/10 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants as well as the Requisitioning Authority, the Institute of Human Resources Development (I.H.R.D) are aggrieved by the re-fixation of compensation by the Reference Court. L.A.A. Nos.1255/09, 1257/09, 1266/09, 1281/09, 1282/09, 1283/09, 1284/09, 98/10 & 159/10 are preferred by the Requisitioning Authority and all the other LAAs are preferred by the claimants. The ground mainly urged in the appeals preferred by the Requisitioning Authority is that the market value re- determined by the Reference Court is excessive while the ground urged by the claimants in their appeals is that the market value re-determined by the Reference Court is quite inadequate. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants in all these cases. We have heard the learned Government Pleaders Smt.Rose Michael and Smt.K.T.Lilly for the Government. We have scanned the judgment of the Reference Court which is impugned in these appeals. In all these cases we find that the property under acquisition was in Kallelebhagam Village and the purpose of acquisition was the construction of the Model LAA.1255/09 & conn. cases -2- Polytechnic at Karunagappally under the IHRD. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 10.12.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.30,203/- per Are. The claimants relied mainly on the sale deed No.3461/99 of the Sub Registry, Karunagappally which was marked as Ext.A5 in the common judgment passed by the reference court in LAR.Nos.153, 154, 163, 164, 165 and 166 of 2000. On the side of the requisitioning authority and the Government the evidence consisted mostly of the records pertaining to the award files. Oral evidence in these cases consisted of the oral evidence of one of the claimants while on the side of the Government the solitary witness was a person attached to the Land Acquisition Office. The requisitioning authority did not adduce any evidence. The reference court did not become inclined to place reliance on the sale deed relied on by the claimants. What it did ultimately was to apply the rule of thumb and to enhance market value of the land by 60% of the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the appeals preferred by the claimants they contend that the document produced by them should have been relied on. In the appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority their contention is that enhancement by 60% on guess was not justified. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed before us by the learned counsel for appellants, the requisitioning authority and the respondents in these appeals and the learned LAA.1255/09 & conn. cases -3- government pleaders Smt. Rose Michael and Smt. K.T. Lilly, we feel that the learned Sub judge was not justified in refixing the market value of land under acquisition in the manner presently done relying solely on the rule of thumb. According to us, the question of determining the correct market value of land under acquisition at the crucial time, that is, the date of promulgation of notification under Section 4(1), has to be reconsidered by the reference court. We are therefore inclined to remit all these LAR cases to the reference court. It is open to the reference court to permit the claimants to adduce further evidence and also to prove document Ext.A5 referred to herein above by examining the vendor or the vendee. It is open to the appellants to prove the comparability between the properties covered by the acquisition and the property covered by documents relied on by them by taking out commission. 4. If the requisitioning authority and the Government are desirous of adducing counter evidence, the reference court shall permit the requisitioning authority and the Government to adduce counter evidence of any type whatsoever. The learned Sub Judge will pass a revised award determining the market value of land under acquisition as on the date of Section 4(1) notification on the basis of the evidence presently on record and which comes to be adduced in pursuance to this order of remand. The parties will enter appearance before the reference court on 5.11.2011. The LAA.1255/09 & conn. cases -4- learned Sub Judge will complete the enquiry and pass revised award within 4 months thereafter. 5. As it is the claimants who have been more responsible for not adducing proper evidence before the reference court, we are inclined to impose proper terms to protect public interest involved in these cases at least to a certain extent. Hence it is ordered that the operation of this remand order will be subject to the following conditions: (1) In case under the revised award to be passed by the reference court the claimants become entitled for enhance compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 13.1.2009 till this date (27.10.2011). (2) All the appellants will forfeit 30% of the total court fee remitted on the appeal memoranda. In other words, the section concerned will refund only 70% of the court fee remitted provided the full court fee on the appeal memoranda has been remitted. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb