Kerala High Court
Animol vs State Of Kerala on 22 June, 2012
Author: Pius C. Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2012/1ST ASHADHA 1934
LA.App..No. 551 of 2011 ( )
---------------------------
(LAR.129/2008 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM)
APPELLANTS:
-----------
1. ANIMOL
W/O.BABY, THATTUMPURATH PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE
MULAKULAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM
2. BINY BABY, D/O.BABY, 20 YEARS, -DO-
3. NIBY BABY, D/O.BABY, AGED 17 YEARS, -DO-
4. MEERA, D/O.BABY, AGED 16 YEARS, -DO-
5. BINCY, D/O.BABY, AGED 8 YEARS, -DO-
(THE APPELLANTS 3-5 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED
BY THEIR MOTHER, THE IST APPELLANT AS GUARDIAN)
BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS K.C.KUNNATHOOR
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686001.
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
MVIP, KURUPANTHARA-686661.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MVIP,
DIVISIN IV, MOOVATTUPUZHA, PIRAVOM-686661.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ALOYSIUS THOMAS.
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22-06-2012, ALONG WITH LAA. 554/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SCL.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
&
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
------------------------------------------
LAA No. 551 OF 2011
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
This appeal pertains to the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kottayam in LAR No:129/2008. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 28.01.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category IV, i.e., dry land having no road frontage, and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.8,063/- per Are. The reference court tried this case along with LAR No:128/2008. The common evidence in these two cases consisted of Exts.A1 and A2, R1 to R4 and C1 and C1(a) and the oral evidence of AWs 1 to
3. There was no counter oral evidence.
2. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place reliance on A1 and A2 or on C1 and C1(a). Finally, by applying the rule of thump, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the land value. Thus, land value was refixed at Rs.9,272/-.
LAA No. 551 OF 2011 ..2..
3. Having made the reappraisal of the evidence ourselves, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in not placing reliance on the documents relied on by the appellants in support of their claim for enhancement. Finally, it was by on guess estimate that the learned Subordinate Judge refixed the land value. We are of the view that a good guess has not been made by the learned Subordinate Judge. On a better guess based on the available evidence, we refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.11,000/- per Are. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
4. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, while decree is drafted and provision is made for interest under Section 28, the section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court in CMA No:1244/2011.
The appeal is allowed as above. Parties are directed to suffer the complete costs.
Sd/-
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-
//True copy// PA to Judge