Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Saidali Mohammed Yosuf on 5 October, 2009
Author: Pius C. Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1818 of 2008(D)
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAIDALI MOHAMMED YOSUF, RAYAR MADOM,
... Respondent
2. N.ABDUL AZEEZ, OSTAKUZHI VEEDU,
3. NAZEER, OSTAKUZHI VEEDU,
4. NAJEEM, OSTAKUZHI VEEDU,
5. NEEMA, OSTAKUZHI VEEDU,
6. THE AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ACQUA
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.C.A.JOY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :05/10/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------
LAA. No. 1818 of 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment which is impugned in this appeal preferred by the Government. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Varkala Village for the purpose of construction of Shrimp Hatchery at Odayam. The relevant Section 4 (1) notification was published on 7-3-1996. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.26,491/- per Are. The reference court in the first instance re-fixed the land value at Rs.45,186/- per Are. There was an appeal and this Court remanded the matter to the reference court and it is pursuant to that order of remand that the impugned judgment is passed. Under the impugned judgment also the land value has been re-fixed exactly at Rs.45,186/- per Are.
2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.Basant Balaji, senior Govt. Pleader and those of Sri.J.Harikumar and Sri.C.A. Joy, learned counsel for the claimant and the requisitioning authority respectively. Mr. Basant Balaji as well as Mr.C.A. Joy would assail the decision of LAA. No. 1818/08 -2- the learned Subordinate Judge. According to them, the learned Judge was not at all justified in granting 25% increase over the value reflected in the basis document on the reason that there is a tendency among people to under value documents for the purpose of saving stamp duty. They also submitted that having rejected the documents put in evidence by the claimants in support of their claim for enhancement, the court below ought to have approved the value fixed by the L.A. Officer. Mr.Harikumar, however, would support the impugned judgment on the various reasons stated therein. According to him, the property is situated close to Papanasam beach which has been a very important tourist destination since several decades. He submitted that the property is not far away from Sivagiri which is the important pilgrim centre for the most populous Hindu Community in the State.
3. We have considered the rival submissions. We have very anxiously gone through the impugned judgment. We LAA. No. 1818/08 -3- are able to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge for having rejected the documents put in evidence by the claimants. We are unable to approve his action in having granted 25% increase on the reason that people under value their documents for the purpose of evading stamp duty. At the same time, we feel that the present market value re-fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time, having regard to the importance of the locality and the potentialities of the property in the context of tourism. For that reason we don't find any warrant for interference. Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-