Ramachandran Nair,J. This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment/decree in L.A.R No.235/2006 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. The claimants have filed a Cross-Objection as C.O No. 26/13.
2. We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Sr. Aloysious Thomas for the appellants and Sri.Jacob P Alex and Sri Joseph P Alex, for the respondents.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded land value at Rs.6,841/- per Are and Rs.25,907/- towards value of improvements. The court below has granted enhancement of land value at Rs.2,00,000/- per Are and a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards value of compound wall and gate.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the property was included in category No.4. by the Land Acquisition Officer. Actually, it is a wet land and therefore, the reliance placed on Ext.A1 judgment is not correct. Ext.A1 judgment will show that the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in relation to the property acquired and included therein was valued at Rs.36,858/- per Are. Therefore, there is no similarity between the property involved in Ext.A1 and the acquired property.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted, by relying upon the report of the Commissioner, that the nature of the property is fully reclaimed and therefore, the categorization given by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be supported. It is submitted that the property formed part of the residential compound of the claimant and the number of trees for which compensation has been granted will support the case of the claimant that it is actually a fully reclaimed land, being enjoyed as a dry land. Learned counsel further submitted that the property actually is located is on the side of the M.C Road and is being in the junction from which the bye- pass road starts and therefore, it has high potential being on the M.C road side itself. It is also submitted that the property is actually in a junction called Nellimoottilpady.
6. Learned Senior Government Pleader relied upon the copies of mahazar prepared at the time of acquisition. The contention is that the property is not actually in the junction, but, it is situated towards north at a distance of 750 metre on the western side of M.C Road.
7. Of course, Ext.A1 is in relation to category No.1 property where the land value awarded is Rs.36,858/-. The question will be whether the property therein is comparable or similar to the acquired property. Since the said aspect has not been fully discussed in the judgment, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if this court is not inclined to affirm the judgment of the Reference Court, the respondents may be given a chance to adduce further evidence in the matter. We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Reference Court.
In the Cross-Objection, the land value claimed is Rs.3,00,000/- and the claimant has paid court fee also. Since the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court, the entire court fee paid will be refunded to the appellant.
Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge.
Sd/- P.V.ASHA, Judge.
True Copy P.A to Judge lsn