Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2013 7TH SRAVANA, 1935 LA.App..No. 686 of 2011 (B) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 114/2006 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA, DATED 14 08-2010. APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, ROEP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------- ROHINIKUTTY, D/O. THANKAMMA, VIDYA BHAVANAM, AYOOR, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE PIN 69.533. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan & K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= L.A.A. No. 686 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th day of July, 2013. JUDGMENT
Siri Jagan, J.
The State has filed this appeal against the judgment in L.A.R.No.114/2006 of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. Properties belonging to the respondent were acquired as per a notification dated 24.10.2002 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition officer fixed the land value at Rs. 75,558/- per are. On reference, the Sub Court enhanced the same by 100% and re-fixed the land value at Rs.1,41,176/- per are. The State is challenging the land value fixed by the Sub Court on the ground that it does not represent the actual market value of the acquired properties. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the Sub Court, without any evidence, fixed the land value based on guess work, which is not proper.
2. Counsel for the respondent is not present.
3. We have heard the learned Government Pleader.
4. At the outset, we note that the impugned judgment is a common judgment in three L.A.Rs. viz. L.A.R. Nos. 112/2006, 113/2006 and 114/2006. This appeal is filed against the judgment in L.A.R. No. 114/2006. The Sub Court fixed the land value in all the three appeals increasing the land value uniformly by 100%. The learned Government Pleader admits that no appeals have been filed against the judgments in L.A.R.Nos. 112 and 113 of 2006, in which a common land value of Rs. 1,05,492/- L.A.A. No. 686 of 2011 -:
2. :- per are was fixed by increasing the land value by 100% from the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It beats us as to how the State can maintain appeal only against one judgment, when the Sub Court uniformly enhanced the land value by 100% in three cases disposed of by a common judgment.
5. The State did not adduce any evidence whatsoever in the LAR to justify the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition officer. Copies of the basis documents were not produced before the Sub Court nor did they produce the mahazar prepared in respect of the acquired property and there was no attempt to prove the comparison between the acquired property and the basis property as well. The claimants produced Exts. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the sale deed No. 710/2003 of S.R.O., Chadayamangalam, as per which 2.42 ares of property was sold for Rs. 10,50,000/- and Ext. A2 is the sale deed No. 1579/99 of S.R.O., Chadayamangalam, as per which 1.01 ares of property was sold for Rs. 3,50,000/-. The claimants examined AWs 1 and 2 to prove the documents as well. Exts. A1 and A2 properties were nearer to the Ayoor Junction, whereas the acquired property was some distance little away. Apart from the same, the acquired property was in the same locality as Exts. A1 and A2 property. But, because of the difference in the potentialities, the Sub Court did not rely on Exts. A1 and A2 documents for fixing the land value. But, from the discussion in the judgment, we find that the Sub Court L.A.A. No. 686 of 2011 -:
3. :- made a guess work to determine the market value with Exts. A1 and A2 in mind and re-fixed the land value at Rs.1,41,176/-. In the absence of any other evidence available, that is the only thing the Sub Court could have validly done. That being so, we do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the judgment of the Sub Court and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.