STATE OF KERALA Vs. MYTHEEN PILLAI MUHAMMED KANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above three appeals are at the instance of State of Kerala. Challenge is against the judgment of Prl. Subordinate Court, Trivandrum and "Addl. Subordinate Court, Trivandrum in L.A.R. Nos. 76, 103 and 24 of 1985 respectively. The land acquisition reference arose out of acquisition proceedings for Vizhinjam Harbour Project. In L.A.R. No. 96/87 10.60 Ares of land in Sy. No. 399/8-11 of Kottukkal Village belonging to the respondents were acquired as per notification dated 10-2-1979. In L.A.A. No. 93/87 105.62 Acres of land in Sy. No. 399/8-9 belonging to the respondents were acquired p under the same notification, whereas in L.A. A. No.265/85 the area acquired would come to 45.93 Ares in Sy. No. 399/8-7. The award was passed in all the three cases on 27-3-1982 and possession was taken on 29-4-1982 in the case of L.A.A. Nos. 96 and 93/ 87 and on 29-3-1982 in L.A.A. No.265/87.

(2.) The Land Acquisition Officer Classified properties in L.A.A. Nos. 96 and 93 of 1987 and 265 of 1987 under category B,C and B respectively and granted land value at the rate of Rs. 3,038/- per Are for category B and 1915/- per Are for category C. Being not satisfied with the amounts thus granted the claimants sought reference and the reference court increased the land value as Rs. 4,000/- per Cent (Rs. 9,880/- per Are) both in L.A.R. No. 76 and 103/85, whereas in L.A.R. No. 24/85 the land value was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 5,435/- per Are. It is seen that the reference court granted all the statutory benefits coming under the amended provisions contained in S.23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Aggrieved by the above enhancement State has come up in appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Government Pleader who was appearing on behalf of the appellant that the reference court have committed a grave error in completely ignoring the categorisation made by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that since the properties are not having similar characteristics it cannot be valued on same basis. According to the appellant, reliance placed on Exts. Al to A4 in the common judgment in L.A.R. Nos. 76 and 103 of 1985 by the reference court is unustainable. The reference court should not have discarded Ext.R2 proceedings of the District Collector. According to the appellant, the properties coming under L.A.R. Nos. 76 and 103 of 1985 have no road frontage which is clear from Ext. R1 group sketch. The learned Government Pleader would further contend that the document relied on by the reference court in L.A.R. No. 24/85 viz., Ext. Al marked in that case which is the same document Ext. R2 marked and referred in the common judgment in L. A.R. Nos. 76 and 103 of 1985 takes in property which has no similarity with the acquired property. The claimant in L.A.R. 24/85 as P.W. 1 had admitted that the property acquired has no direct road access. Under these circumstances, the reference court should not have adopted the valuation in Ext. Al in L.A.R. No. 24/85 to fix the land value of the acquired property. In all the three appeals petitions to amend the memorandum of appeal are filed raising an additional ground challenging the relief granted by the reference court under S.23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the different claimants in these appeals" addressed elaborate arguments in support of me valuation made by the reference court. It was also submitted that no additional around can be permitted at this distance of time challenging the grant under S.23(1A) of the Act.