2025:KER:28624 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 LA.APP. NO. 168 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.11.2016 IN LAR NO.22 OF 2013 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/1ST RESPONENT IN LAR: THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOCHI CORPORATION SPL GP - N SUDHADEVI RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR : 1 THE SECRETARY SANMARGA PRADEEPAM YOGAM,PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA, REPRESENTED BY PRESENT SECRETARY MRIDULAN, S/O.M.K.ASOKAN, SRISHAILAM, VERUMPADATH VEEDU, THYKOODAM, 682019 2 THE SECRETARY KOCHI CORPORATION-682011 BY ADVS. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.N.MANMADAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SMT.P.SEENA C.N.PRABHAKARAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LAA No.168/2019 2 2025:KER:28624 DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & EASWARAN S., JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- LAA No.168 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT Easwaran S. , J. The appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment and decree in LAR No.22 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: An extent of 3.95 Ares of land belonging to the respondent – claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of Ponnurunni Railway Over Bridge. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 26.02.2011. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the land into two categories, 2 Ares of land comprising in Sy.No.558/2-6 and Sy.No.557/1-3 as dry land and 1.95 Ares of land in Sy.No.558/1-5 as wet reclaimed dry land. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.30,90,295/- per are for the dry land and Rs.29,33,824/- per Are for the wet reclaimed dry land. The building in the property was valued at Rs.6,66,846/-. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed LAA No.168/2019 3 2025:KER:28624 by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In support of the claim, the claimant produced Ext.A1 certified copy of the Sale Deed No.2075/12 dated 29.06.2012 and also took out an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection. Exts.B1 to B3 were produced on behalf of the State. The claimant was examined as AW1 and the Commissioner was examined as CW1. The respondent examined RW1 in support of their contentions. The Reference Court, on appreciation of evidence, increased the land value to Rs.52,53,501/- per Are by categorising the entire extent of 3.95 Ares as a dry land and granted 30% enhancement to the structural value by relying on Ext.A1 document and deducting 25% of the value therein. 3. The State, in this appeal, contends that the land value fixed by the Reference Court relying upon a post notification document is improper. 4. Heard, Smt.Sudha Devi – learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State and Sri.A.Balagopalan – learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant. 5. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, we find that the course of action adopted by the Reference Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. In evidence, it has come out that the Land Acquisition Officer could not justify the fixation of LAA No.168/2019 4 2025:KER:28624 the land value based on Ext.B1. Going by Ext.B1, the total value reflected therein is Rs.37,60,106/- per Are and deducting Rs.3,00,000/- towards value of the building, the amount fixed per Are is Rs.34,60,106/- . However, the Land Acquisition Officer reduced the land value still further and fixed it as Rs.30,90,295/- per Are. This is the primary reason why the Reference Court chose to rely on Ext.A1 and deducted 25% from the land value and arrived at Rs.52,53,501/-. 6. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the recourse adopted by the Reference Court is perfectly justified. As regards the value of the building, we find that the Reference Court has granted only 30% of the enhancement for the value of the structures, going by the rates prescribed by the PWD. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Reference Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE ACR