UTHUP KURIAN, Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from the common judgment of learned Sub Judge, Pala in L.A.R.Nos.21 of 2006 and 26 of 2006. I have not called for the entire records since the learned counsel for the appellant has given me a copy of Exts.A1 to A3 and C1.

(2.) 2.11 Ares abutting PWD road, described by the revenue authorities as dry land coming in category No.1 and 3.00Ares, described as wetland with no road access falling under category No.7 and belonging to the appellant were acquired by the respondent for formation of the M.V.I.P Canal. The notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, "the Act") was issued on 03.08.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "the LAO") fixed land value for the 2.11 Ares as '.20,838/- per Are while for the 3.00 Ares, it was fixed at '.5,321/- per Are. Not satisfied, the appellant made a request for reference. References were taken on file L.A.R.Nos.21 of 2006 and 26 of 2006, the former as regards land comprised in category No.1 and the latter, regarding land comprised in category No.7.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the reference court has not placed proper reliance on Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 was rejected for flimsy reasons. It is submitted that the properties are situated in the heart of Kuravilangadu town, commercially and otherwise important and the same was not taken into account. A further contention the learned counsel has advanced is that though 3.00 Ares in L.A.R.No.26 of 2006 is situated just behind the 2.11 Ares in L.A.R.No.21 of 2006 since both the items belonged to the same person, the property situated behind must be treated as having sufficient road access. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Jospeh Cyriac Vs. State of Kerala (2004(3) KLT SN.66 (Page No.48)). The learned counsel has also invited my attention to the judgment in L.A.A.No.820 of 2007 of this Court to contend that in respect of property situated just opposite to the property involved in these appeals, the Division Bench of this Court has fixed land value at '.45,000/- per Are.