E K PRABHAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants are in appeal. THEir properties were included in category-1 (dry lands with road frontage) and category-3 (reclaimed lands) were acquired by the Government for the purpose of second respondent Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady. THE acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 22/04/1994. For the properties included in category-1, the appellants were awarded land value at the rate of Rs.25,370/- per Are. For the properties included in category-3, they were awarded value at the rate of Rs.16,491/- per Are. THE Reference Court in the first instance re-fixed the land value by granting enhancement of 100% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. THE Requisitioning Authority preferred appeals. This Court set aside the award and remanded the matter to Reference Court. After the remand the Reference Court re- fixed the land value granting enhancement by 44% only. Against the re-fixed judgment, the claimants came up in appeal. That appeal was allowed by way of remand permitting both sides to adduce further evidence. Pursuant to that remand the appellants produced documents including Ext.A5. Ext.A5 is a document reflecting land value of Rs.17,284/- per Are. Ext.A5 is executed some nine years prior to the relevant Section 4(1) notification. THE appellants claimed that Ext.A5 be relied on and additions at the rate of 10% per year be granted over value reflected in Ext.A5 and values of wetlands be re-fixed that way. THE further request was that based on that value, additions be given in view of the fact that the lands involved in this case is dry land and reclaimed land. THE above request of the claimants did not find favour with the learned Subordinate Judge. THE learned Subordinate Judge discarded Ext.A5 mainly on the reason that Ext.A5 was executed nine years prior to Section 4(1) notification. THE learned Subordinate Judge seems to have been of the opinion that in land acquisition cases, the Reference Court is bound to consider only documents executed within a period of three years prior to the relevant Section 4(1) notification.

(2.) IN this appeal various grounds are raised and the ground prominently raised is that Ext.A5 should not have been discarded. Smt.Rose Michael, the learned counsel for the appellants addressed arguments based on all the grounds. Sri.Alan Papali would oppose all the submissions of Smt.Rose Michael. Smt.Rose Michael relied strongly on the judgment of this Court in Spl. Dy. Collector v. Abdul Gafoor (2008(1) KLT 115).