ARIFA BEEVI W/O. MOHAMMED ILIYAS,SABITHA MANZIL,KALLATTUMUKKU MANACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE SECRETARY, TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants are the appellants. Their property in Manacaud village was acquired at the instance of TRIDA for the purpose of vegetable market at Chalai. This acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 03/01/93. The Land Acquisition Officer included the properties in categories A and B. For properties included in category -A, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 30,369/ - per Are. For those properties included in category -B, he awarded value at the rate of Rs. 27,330/ - per Are. The Reference Court found that the categorization of the properties under acquisition to two was unjustified. The Reference Court included the entire property in one category. In the first instance the Reference Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties re -fixed the land value at Rs. 1,12,385/ - per Are. The appellants claimants preferred an appeal to this Court as L.A.A.1002/10. this Court considering the above appeal interfered with the impugned award and remanded the LAR to the Reference Court for passage of a revised award. Opportunity was given to the claimants to adduce further evidence also. After remand the appellants produced Exts.A15 to A19. The learned Subordinate Judge on evaluating those documents would re -fix the land value at Rs. 1,18,560/ - per Are. In this appeal, the ground raised is that the learned Subordinate Judge erred in not relying on Ext.A19. It is urged that the rate presently re -fixed by the Reference Court is not adequate.

(2.) WE have heard the submissions of Sri.Philip J. Vettickattu, the Learned Counsel for the appellants and also those of Sri.C.R.Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Sri. Philip drew our attention to Ext.A19. He submitted that Ext.A19 properties were in the same village were acquired for the purpose of construction of Chalai Bye pass. According to him the acquired properties were acquired from lands situated around existing Chalai Vegetable Market and hence, were more valuable than the properties covered by Ext.A19. For Ext.A19 properties this Court finally re -fixed the value at Rs. 7 lakhs per Are. According to Sri. Philip even if it is assumed that there is some superiority for Ext.A19 property there cannot be serious objection in allowing the present appeal wherein the market value is sought to be re -fixed at Rs. 2 lakhs per are only.

(3.) HAVING anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in not placing reliance on Ext.A19. At the same time, we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was slightly miserly when it came to the fixation of market value of the land under acquisition. On making a re -appraisal of the evidence on record by ourselves, we feel that the market value of the land under acquisition can be reasonably re -fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/ - per Are. Allowing this appeal we re -fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 1,50,000/ - per Are. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is allowed. No costs. Decree copy will be issued to the appellants only after ensuring that the appellants have remitted the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum.