IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 683 of 2005() ------------------------- LAR.62/2001 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT. ----------------------- VARKEYMATHEW, ORAVACHALIL HOUSE, ALAPURAM KARA, ELANJI VILLAGE, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ABRAHAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.C.V.JOHNY SRI.PETER ISSAC RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT. -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------- L.A.A No. 683 of 2005-A ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The claimant is in appeal. The property was in Elanji Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk. The same was acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 16.1.1996 for the purpose of construction of MVIP Mulakulam Branch Canal. The Land Acquisition Officer treated the property as wet land. As per the revenue records also the property was wet land. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per Are. The main item of evidence produced by the appellant was Ext.A1 judgment of the same reference court in an other case. Under Ext.A1 the value of the land was refixed at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per Are. The contention which was urged before the Reference Court was that the property under acquisition was actually dry land and that the same was part of a rubber plantation. The above contention was repelled by the Reference Court. The Revenue Inspector who prepared the mahazar was examined. In the appeal also the ground urged most is that the Land Acquisition L.A.A No. 683 of 2005-A : 2 : Officer went wrong in treating the property under acquisition as wet land. 2. We heard Sri.Peter Issac, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, senior Government Pleader. Sri.Peter Issac submitted that there were 102 rubber trees on the property under acquisition and the Land Acquisition Officer himself awarded the total compensation of Rs.5,304/- towards value of those trees. The mahazar itself, according to the learned counsel, is evidence is clear enough to accept the contention that the real nature of the property was dry and not wet. The learned counsel placed before us a copy of the mahazar and he read over to us the evidence tendered by AW2. The mahazar certainly reveals the existance of 102 rubber plants of 2 years of age on the property under acquisition. There is nothing in the mahazar to indicate that the property under acquisition was dry land. The mahazar was prepared in 19.2.1996 ie. one month from the date of promulgation of the notification under Section 4(1). Even going by the mahazar, the rubber plants which existed in the property were only two years old. AW2 had no explanation to offer L.A.A No. 683 of 2005-A : 3 : as to why despite opinion that the property was dry land, he did not specifically report so to the Land Acquisition Officer. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the land was dry land and part of a rubber plantation. The value awarded to the wet land under Ext.A4 has been awarded to the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab