STATE OF KERALA Vs. A R RAJEEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of 13.30 Ares of land in R.S.No.563/7 of Peroorkada Village was acquired for the purpose of expansion programme of composite group and IISU of ISRO. The Notification was issued on 22.04.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.17,923/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at Rs.5,00,000/= per Are. It is aggrieved by the same that the State is before us. On the basis of the notice issued on admission, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Senior Government Pleader. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the matter must be treated as covered by the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in LAA.No.359 of 2010. We extract the said Judgment hereunder:

(2.) As is clear from a perusal of the Judgment, the learned Judges followed the earlier Judgment in LAA.No.411/2010. Learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the land in this case which was characterised as G Category by the Land Acquisition Officer is to be compensated with the market value of Rs.2,05,000/= per Are as was done by the Division Bench. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the categorisation itself was not correct. He would also submit that Ext.A1 document was proved and the claimant gave evidence as AW1 and there was no contra evidence by the State and the burden is on the State.

(3.) We notice from the Judgment in LAA.No.411/2010, which is purportedly followed by the Division Bench in LAA.No.359/2010, that Ext.A1 which is relied on by the first respondent in this case, was also produced and proved as Ext.A1 in LAA.No.411/2010. Therefore, it is the very same document which was considered by the Court. We notice that there is nothing in the Judgment to indicate that the respondent has challenged the categorisation of the land under Category G. In other words, there is nothing to show that the respondent seriously disputed the categorisation of the land under Category G. There is no dispute by the counsel for the first respondent that the land involved in LAA.No.359/2010 was also categorised as G. If that is so, the factual situation is that for Category G land, this Court has refixed the market value at Rs.2,05,000/= per Are. We see no reason why we should not follow the same and we follow the Judgment in LAA.No.359/2010 and refix the market value of the land at Rs.2,05,000/= per Are. The first respondent will also be entitled to all statutory benefits. The Appeal is allowed as above. However, there will be no order as to costs.