AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The Government is in appeal. The property was in Thycaud village. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4
(1) notification published on 05/01/06. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 2,44,530/- per Are. Reference Court under the impugned award re-fixed the land value at ` 28 lakhs per Are. According to the Government, the rate so re-fixed is highly excessive. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Aloysius Thomas, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the respondent.
Sri.Aloysius Thomas drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.1205/10 and submitted that the value of identical lands acquired in 2004 for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the same rate of ` 2,44,530/- has been re-fixed by this Court at ` 17,50,000/-per Are. Sri.Aloysius requested that the appeal be allowed and the market value be re-fixed at ` 17,50,000/-.
Resisting the above submission Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent would draw our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.2450/08. It was submitted that under that judgment value of identical lands acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dt.07/09/04 has been finally re-fixed at ` 21,38,390/-. The learned counsel submitted that as there is a time lag between the two notifications additions are to be made. The counsel pointed out that the property involved in this case is situated very near to Thampanoor and was a commercial spot. Hence, there is every justification for sustaining the impugned award.
We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the two judgments to which our attention was invited by the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. We notice the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab (2012(2) KLT 542 (SC)) wherein Their Lordships have indicated that the approach of the court should be to award the higher value reflected in documents having probative value as the citizen has been deprived of his property against his wishes. The comparability of the property under acquisition and the property covered by LAA.2450/08 is discernible. May be the property under acquisition was to a slight extent inferior going by the award. But we are sure that the claimant should be awarded at least the value of ` 21,38,390/- awarded to the claimant in L.A.A.2450/08 in view of the time lag between the relative notifications u/s 4(1). The appeal is allowed re-fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at ` 21,38,390/-. Needless to say that the claimant/respondent will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. We also clarify that we have not interfered with the cost awarded by the trial court to the claimant/respondent. Parties will suffer their respective costs in this appeal.