M MANOJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PIUS C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is the appellant. His property in Pettah village was included in category-5 (wetland partly converted into dry lands forming bunds, cultivating coconut trees surrounded by water etc. etc.) and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a land value of Rs. 39,900/- per Are. Before the Reference Court the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 and A2, R1 to R7, C1 Commissioner's Report and the oral evidence of the appellant as AW1. The learned Subordinate Judge placing reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 would re-fix the land value at Rs. 1 lakh per Are. The ground which is prominently raised in this appeal is that as the property of the appellant's mother lying adjacent to the acquired property was included in category-4 for which the Land Acquisition Officer himself awarded double the value, the appellant's property should also have been included in category-4. It is therefore urged that the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per Are presently awarded be doubled.

(2.) SMT.R.Bindu, the learned counsel for the appellant would address strenuous submissions before us based on the above grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. She submitted that the appellant's property and the appellant's mother's property were lying contiguously and both these properties were being enjoyed by the appellant's son and mother as those the same was a single holding and hence the categorisation of these properties into two (cateogory 5 and 4) by the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified. She submitted that we should proceed as if the property should be eligible to be included in category-4 and proportionate increase based on the increase presently given be granted.

(3.) AS rightly argued by the Senior Government Pleader the contention that the appellant's property should have been included in category 4 was not seriously pursued in evidence. Similarly, the contention that as the mother's property was lying contiguously and the appellant's property was enjoying all the advantages of mother's property is also not pursued in evidence. The appellant took out a Commission and Ext.C1 is the Commissioner's report. In Ext.C1 what is reported is the importance of the locality in view of the nearness to various institutions in the area. No report on the specific issue of the appellant's property enjoying all the facilities of appellant's mother's property is available (may be by the time the commissioner visited, the nature of the property had been converted after taking over of possession). Even though Smt.Bindu sought for a remand order we do not think that such an order will serve any useful purpose to the appellant as the land under acquisition has now become part of the airport terminal compound. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed Rs. 1 lakh per Are based on Exts.A1 and A2. They were the only two documents produced by the appellant. But as the submission of Smt.Bindu that the appellant's property was lying adjacent to his mother's property and that the mother's property was included in category-4 is not seriously disputed we feel that we can justifiably assume that the mother was allowing access to the appellant through her property. The above advantage is not seen reckoned with by the learned Subordinate Judge while fixing the market value. We feel that there is justification for awarding a little more than what is presently awarded. We re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 1,10,000/- per Are.