IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 1161 of 2010() -------------------------- LAR.216/2008 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- M/S.KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LTD.(A GOVT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING) P.B.NO.20, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O. - 683 573 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR) SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1161 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of March , 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd., the claimant before the Reference Court, is in appeal. Their property in Angamaly village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 23/7/2006 for the purpose of railways. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied mostly on Exts.A1 and A2. The court below did not place reliance on Exts. A1 and A2. The court below practically placed reliance on the basis document and would increase the land value by 50% as if so much of increase is justified on account of passage of time. 2. As rightly submitted by the learned senior Government Pleader, Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, passage of time between the LAA.No.1161/2010 2 basis document and the notification under Section 4(1) was two years. The maximum addition that could have been granted towards passage of time in this case was only 25% per year as the properties cannot be said to have been in the heart areas of Angamaly town. 3. Sri.K.Narayanan Parur learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the court below was not justified in discarding Exts.A1 and A2. We find some force in the submission of Mr.Narayanan. Ext.A1 was the court judgment pertaining to acquisition of land in Angamaly village itself pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 1/11/2003. Under Ext.A1, the Land Acquisition Officer had granted Rs.1,38,790/- per Are. The Reference Court under Ext.A1 would refix the land value at Rs.3,56,611/- per Are. Ext.A2 is yet another court judgment pertaining to acquisition of land in the same village pursuant to a notification published on 1/11/2004. Under Ext.A2, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value of Rs.2,03,555/- per Are and the court below refixed the same at Rs.4,95,401/- per Are. The question that arises for consideration is as to what extent Exts.A1 and A2 can be relied on. We notice that the LAA.No.1161/2010 3 property under acquisition and the properties covered by Ext.A1 were situated in the same village and the distance between the properties was not much. It is seen from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer itself that the value of the acquired property was 80% of the value covered by Ext.A1 (as on the date of the present notification making due additions/deductions towards passage of time) even according to the award. Similarly, it is seen that the property covered by Ext.A2 was situated in the same village at a distance of some 350 meters from the acquired property. Going by the ratio maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values awarded for Ext.A2 property and the present property, the value of the present property could not have been more than 60% of Ext.A2 property. It is not disputed that Exts.A1 and A2 have attained finality. When the value of the acquired properties is calculated on the basis of Ext.A1, the same will come to Rs.2,85,288/-. Similarly, when value of the acquired properties calculated with reference to Ext.A2, the same will come to Rs.2,97,246/- per Are. We feel that it will be safer to take the average of the values of Exts.A1 and A2 for arriving at the market value of the LAA.No.1161/2010 4 acquired property. The value of the property under acquisition will come to Rs.2,91,677/-, which we round off to Rs.2,92,000/- per Are. Accordingly, we refix the value of the property under acquisition at Rs.2,92,000/- per Are. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23 (1A) and Section 28 of the L.A.Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk