Ismail vs State of Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The claimant is the appellant. The property was in Kumaramangalam village within the limits of Thodupuzha Municipality. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 12/06/02 for the purpose of Kolani- Vengallor byepass. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category-3 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 17,561/- per Are. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties re-fixed the land value at Rs. 51,961/- per Are. One argument which was seriously raised before the Reference Court was that the property was eligible to be included in category-1. Even though the appellant took out a commission and the Commissioner filed Ext. C1 report and Ext. C1(a) sketch the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to accept the above argument. The learned Subordinate Judge retained the property in category-3 itself and re-fixed the land value at Rs. 51,961/- per Are. In this appeal, various grounds are raised assailing what is described as the inadequacy of the compensation re- fixed by the Reference Court.

We have heard the submissions of Smt. P.B. Wahida, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri. C.R. Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Smt. Wahida submitted that the property should have been included by the learned Subordinate Judge in category-2. She drew our attention to Ext. C1 report and Ext. C1(a) sketch. She argued that there is every justification for including the property in category-2. She drew our attention also to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.1355/09 by which the value of the property in category-2 has been re-fixed at Rs. 50,000/- per cent. She requested that the appeal be allowed and the value of the property under acquisition be re-fixed at Rs. 50,000/- per cent.

All the submissions of Smt. Wahida were opposed by Sri. C.R. Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. He submitted that the appellant did not have any consistent case regarding the correct category for which the appellant''s property should be included. The appellant''s case before the Reference Court is that his property should be included in category-1. The property could not be included in category-1 or 2 as Ext. C1 will not justify such inclusion. Sri. Syamkumar, however conceded that the judgment in L.A.A.1355/09 has attained finality. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the appellant can legitimately aspire for re-fixation of the value on the basis of the judgment in L.A.A.1355/09. What can be granted is only proportionate increase. As we are in agreement with the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the category of this property was ''3'' only we allow this appeal giving proportionate increase based on the judgment in L.A.A.1355/09. The market value of the land under acquisition is re-fixed at Rs. 45,000/- per cent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, while decree is drafted the conditions imposed by this Court in C.M. Application No. 180/12 shall be taken note of by the Section. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted by the appellant.