IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 106 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.29/2008 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- JACOB,S/O.THOMAS,KARIMKUTTICKAL HOUSE,MEMMURY. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,MVIP DN,NO.III, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 106 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. His lands in Memmury Village of Muvattupuzha Taluk were acquired for the purpose of Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. This was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 6/2/2006. The Land Acquisition Officer included substantial portion of the properties in a particular category and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6476/- per Are. A small portion situated nearer to the main road was included in a superior category and was awarded value at the rate of Rs 8635/- per Are. 2. It was mainly on Ext.A1 judgment that the appellant relied on in support of his claim for enhancement. Ext.A1 was the judgment of the same court in respect of acquisition of land in the same village, but pursuant to Section 4(1) notification LAA.No.106/2011 2 more than 9 years earlier. Under Ext.A1, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded two different rates as in the present case. For the superior properties, he awarded Rs.9800/- per Are and for the slightly inferior properties, he awarded Rs.8,400/- per Are. The Court below under Ext.A1 refixed the value of properties at the rate of Rs.13,800 and 12,600/- per Are respectively. 3. The court below under the impugned judgment did not place reliance on Ext.A1. But, obviously by keeping in mind the value reflected in Ext.A1 also, the learned Sub Judge did some guess work and would refix the value of properties at Rs.9066/- per and Rs.12089/- per Are respectively. 4. The ground, which is mainly raised by the appellant, is that the court below ought to have relied on Ext.A1 and given proportionate increase taking into account the passage of about 10 years time. Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam learned counsel for the appellant would address arguments before us based on that ground. The learned Government Pleader Smt.T.T.Josephina submitted that there is no comparison between Ext.A1 properties and the properties under acquisition. The LAA.No.106/2011 3 acquisitions were pursuant to different notifications and the gap between these notifications is about 10 years. Ext. A1 properties were superior to the acquired properties as even 10 years earlier higher value had been given. In reply, Mr.Bindu Sasthamangalam would refer to the commission report and plan and submit that the acquired properties were in fact superior to Ext.A1 properties. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr.Bindu Sasthamangalam that the properties under acquisition were superior to the properties covered by Exct.A1. At the same time, we find some force in the submission of the learned counsel that the value reflected in Ext.A1 has some relevance in determining the correct market value of the properties under acquisition. After all, the properties were in the same village and the distance between the properties was also not much. Memmury village is a rural area. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008 SAR (Civil) 894) there is justification for presuming that in rural LAA.No.106/2011 4 areas escalation is upto 7.5% per year in the matter of land value. We feel that for Memmury village the escalation should have been at least 6% per year. Under Ext.A1 the enhancement granted by the court below is 40% for superior and 50% for the inferior category. We feel that it can be assumed that for both types of properties covered by Ext.A1 there was justification for granting an increase of 50% . Calculating the market value of the properties under acquisition in that way, the same will come to Rs.9714/- and 12952/- per Are respectively. Giving additions for passage of time, the market value of the land under acquisition will have to be increased considerably. Taking relevant plus and minus factors into account and doing some guess work on the basis of the evidence on record, we refix the market value of the properties for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.6476/- at Rs.15,000/- per Are and the market value of the properties for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded at Rs.8635/- at Rs.20,000/- per Are. The enhanced compensation for the two categories of the properties will be calculated on the above basis. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled LAA.No.106/2011 5 for statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible. However, while providing for interest under Section 28 the Registry will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us in our order dated 1-2-2011 in C.M.Appln.213/2011. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk