Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Suhail Hussain on 6 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/16TH JYAISHTA 1934
LA.App..No. 659 of 2010 (D)
---------------------------
LAR.116/2002 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 LAR:
-------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.
2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV.SRI.ALOYSIOUS THOMAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT NO.2 IN LAR:
--------------------------------------------------
1. SUHAIL HUSSAIN, S/O.ABOOBACKER KOYA,
10/1062, PUTHIYA NADUVILAKAM, KUTTICHIRA.
2. PROJECT OFFICER, OECF, KOZHIKODE.
R2 BY ADV. SMT.S,AMBIKA DEVI,SC,KWA (NO M/A)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
R2 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS, SC KWA
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06-06-2012, ALONG WITH CO. 93/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AS
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
L.A.A.No.659 of 2010 & C.O.No.93/2011.
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
L.A.A.No.659/2010 is filed by the Government and the memorandum of cross objection is filed by the claimant/respondent. The property was in Panniyankara village. The acquisition was for the purpose of Kerala Water Authority pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification published on 28/05/1998. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13,233/- per cent, as against the appellant's claim of Rs 3 lakhs per cent.
2. Before the reference court the evidence adduced by the claimant consisted of Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds and also Ext.C1 report submitted by the Commissioner. The Commissioner in Ext.C1 on the basis of what he describes on local enquiry reported that the value of the property is Rs.2 lakhs per cent.
3. The learned Subordinate Jude did not place reliance on the recommendations of the Commissioner, as the same were not supported L.A.A.No.659 of 2010 & C.O.No.93/2011. -:2:- by value reflected in any sale document. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on Ext.A1, which reflected land value of Rs.1 lakh per cent. Accordingly, market value was re-fixed at Rs.1 lakh.
4. In the appeal preferred by the Government, it is contended that the rate fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is excessive. In the memorandum of cross objection submitted by the claimant/respondent, it is urged that the acquired property was superior to Ext.A1 property. It is urged that Ext.A1 property did not have the frontage of the by-pass road at all, unlike the acquire property which was having the frontage of the by-pass road. It was the acquired property which was superior and much more value than what is reflected in Ext.A1 should have been granted.
5. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Aloysius Thomas, learned Senior Government Pleader and Mr. Ramesan Nambisan, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. We have made a quick re-appraisal of the evidence on record particularly, Exts.A1 and C1. We cannot accept the argument of Mr. Ramesan Nambisan that Ext.A1 property did not have a frontage of Calicut mini bye-pass road. It is seen from the property L.A.A.No.659 of 2010 & C.O.No.93/2011. -:3:- schedule description in Ext.A1 itself that Ext.A1 property was abutting the Calicut mini bye-pass road. The Commissioner's recommendations on the basis of local enquiry cannot be accepted, as they are not supported by the value reflected in any sale document pertaining to comparable property.
6. There was serious controversy at the Bar as to which property is superior. The property under acquisition or Ext.A1 property ? According to the Mr. Aloysius Thomas, the property under acquisition is inferior property, while according to Mr. Ramesan Nambisan, it is the property under acquisition which is superior.
7. Having re-assessed the materials, we are of the view that in terms of quality, the properties are almost similar. This means that, the learned Senior Government Pleader was justified in relying on Ext.A1. We find that Ext.A1 was executed two and a half years prior to Sec.4(1) Notification. The acquired property was admittedly within the limits of Calicut city. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in G.M Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. R. Jeevanbhai Patel and Another (2008 SAR (Civil) 894 (SC)), we are of the view that L.A.A.No.659 of 2010 & C.O.No.93/2011. -:4:- there is justification for awarding 35% of the value reflected in Ext.A1 for passage of time. Making additions that way, we re-fix the market value of land under acquisition at Rs.1,35,000/- per cent. We dismiss the appeal preferred by the Government and allow the cross objection preferred by the claimant/cross objector However, it is needless to mention that the claimant/respondent will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the re- fixed compensation.
In the result, Appeal is dismissed and the cross objection is allowed, however without any order as to costs.
Sd/-
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/-
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE krj