AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Pius C. Kuriakose
The claimants who are fractional owners of the land under acquisition are aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court under which the Reference Court confirmed the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the "rocky area" involved in the acquisition. The acquisition was for the purpose of the Tourism Department i.e. for establishment of Kunhali Marakkar Complex. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 02/03/2000. For the garden lands which were acquired the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 3,852/- per cent. For the rocky area he awarded value at the rate of Rs. 1,156/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge placing reliance on Ext. A2 judgment of the same court in another case pertaining to the same acquisition re-fixed the market value of the garden land at Rs. 10,000/- per cent. Proportionate increase was not given by the learned Subordinate Judge for the rocky area which was also acquired for the reason that no evidence regarding the potentiality of the rocky area was brought on record by the claimants. In this appeal the main ground raised is that based on Ext. A2 itself proportionate increase should be made and the market value of the rocky area should be re-fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per cent minimum.
We have heard the submissions of Sri. P.R. Sreejith the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. C.R. Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. We have very carefully gone through the impugned award. We have taken into account the items of evidence, particularly Ext. A2. It is a matter of common knowledge that there will be a co-relation between the values of different types of land situated in a given compact local area. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs. 3,852/- per cent for the garden land and awarded value at the rate of Rs. 1,156/- per cent for the rocky area which were lying contiguous with the garden land. In other words, the Land Acquisition Officer, took the stand that the value of rocky area will be 30% of the value of the garden land. When the court re-fixes the correct market value of the garden land at Rs. 10,000/- a finding should inevitably follow that the value of the rocky area is not what was originally fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. We find considerable force in the submission of Sri.Sreejith that there is justification for increasing the value of the rocky area proportionately. But when proportionate increase is given, value of the rocky area will come to Rs. 3,000/- . We are not inclined to re-fix the market value of the rocky area at Rs. 3,000/- per cent. We keep in mind the judgments of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Gadwal Vs. Smt. Sreelatha Bhoopal and another, , Gafar and Others Vs. Moradabad Development Authority and Another, and State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani and Others, and re-fix the value of the rocky area which is subject matter of the present appeal at Rs. 2,700/- per cent as the rocky area under acquisition is a fairly large extent. The appeal is allowed to the above extent of re-fixing the market value of rocky land at Rs. 2,700/- per cent. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits also. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs also. Decree copy will be issued to the appellants only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted.