Kerala High Court
Smt.Susamma Baby vs The State Of Kerala on 23 March, 2011
Author: Pius C.Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, N.K.Balakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 665 of 2009()
1. SMT.SUSAMMA BABY, W/O.K.S.BABY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.KOSHY
For Respondent :SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :23/03/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.Nos. 665 & 747 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The claimant is in appeal. Her properties in Kurumpala village situated at a distance of about 100 metres from Kurumpala junction on M.C.Road abutting the Pandalam - Pazhakulam PWD road were acquired at the instance of the Kerala Water Authority in connection with the Pandalam water supply scheme.
2. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 15/12/2003. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.7391/- per Are. It was on Ext.A1 judgment pertaining to acquisition of land in Adoor village within the area of the Adoor Municipality that the appellant relied on in support of her claim for enhancement. The learned Subordinate Judge giving good reason did not place reliance on Ext.A1. Ultimately what the learned Sub Judge did was to take into account the importance of the locality and the fact that the LAA.Nos.665 & 747/2009 2 property was enjoying the frontage of PWD road and to refix the land value at Rs.75,000/- per Are. Actually it is on guess work that the land value was refixed at the above rate.
3. In these appeals, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Reference Court. Sri.T.K.Koshy learned counsel for the appellant would address arguments based on those grounds. According to him, the court below was not justified in not placing reliance on Ext.A1. Distance between Ext.A1 property and the property under acquisition is only 3 kilometres and hence Ext.A1 should be relied on and the value under Ext.A1 should have been granted, so submitted the learned counsel.
4. All the submissions of Mr.Koshy were resisted by the learned counsel for the requisitioning authority. According to her, it is on guess work that the court below has awarded enhancement to the appellant. What has been awarded is maximum.
5. The learned senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha.T.Thankappan submitted that there is no comparison between Ext.A1 property and the property under acquisition. LAA.Nos.665 & 747/2009 3 Ext.A1 was situated within the area of Adoor Municipality. Under Ext.A1 KSEB settled the issue with the parties concerned by agreeing for land value at the rate of Rs.55,000/- per cent.
6. In reply, Mr.Koshy submitted that the appellant has a grievance that she did not obtain sufficient opportunity for proving the comparability of Ext.A1 property and the property under acquisition and also for producing documents reflecting higher value than what is awarded under the impugned judgment. The learned counsel requested that LAR Nos. 200/2005 201/2005 be remanded to the court below.
7. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We do not find any difficulty to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in not relying on Ext.A1 especially as there was no commission report before him to prove the comparability of Ext.A1 property with the properties under acquisition. Ext.A1 as already indicated is the only document relied on by the appellant. If the appellant did not produce other documents reflecting higher value, she herself is blame for that. However, notwithstanding the stiff opposition from the side of the requisitioning authority and the Government, LAA.Nos.665 & 747/2009 4 we are inclined to afford opportunity to the appellant to adduce further evidence. But, we are inclined to do so only on terms,
8. The result of the above discussion is as follows;
i). The judgment and decree impugned are set aside and the LAR Nos.200/2005 & 201/2005 are remanded to the Subordinate Judges Court, Pathanamthitta for taking a fresh decision. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to permit the claimant to adduce further evidence. If she desirous of taking out commission, she should be permitted to do so. She should also be permitted to produce further documents and to prove documents in accordance with law, if necessary, by examining the parties to the same. If the claimant adduces evidence, the requisitioning authority and the Government also should be permitted to adduce further evidence. The learned Sub Judge will pass a revised judgment on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence which has come up on record.
ii). The parties will enter appearance before the court below on the day the court reopens after mid summer holidays.
Iii). The Subordinate Judges court will complete the enquiry and pass revised judgment at the earliest and at any rate LAA.Nos.665 & 747/2009 5 within three months of the parties entering appearance before the court below. We however, make it clear that this judgment remanding the LAR cases to the Reference Court will become operative only subject to the following conditions;
a). The appellant will forfeit the entire court fee remitted by her on the appeal memoranda to the Government.
b). The appellant will pay a sum of Rs.2500/- to the requisitioning authority through their standing counsel in this court within two weeks from today and produce receipt before the court below.
c). In the event of the appeal being allowed and the appellant becoming eligible for compensation over and above what is awarded under the impugned judgment by virtue of the revised judgment, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period from 27/11/2007 till 23/3/2011.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk