IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 245 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.12/2005 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- DAYANANDA, S/O.NARAYANA MASTER, AGED 36 YEARS, PINTO COMPLEX, PADAVINANGADY, MANGLORE, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNY HOLDER K.LALITHA, W/O.B.M. GOPALA, SUNIL NIVAS, BANGRA MANJESHWAR VILLAGE, P.O.MANJESHWAR, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) KASRAGOD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KASARAGOD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA.T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 245 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimant and the claimant raises the following points : 1) The awarding officer as well as the reference court went wrong in calculating the additional amount due under Section 23(1A). 2) The awarding officer as well as the reference court went wrong in calculating the interest admissible under Section 34. 3) The reference court went wrong in not placing reliance on Ext.A1. 2. Extensive submissions were addressed before us by Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned Government Pleader. Having considered the rival submissions, we find that there is some merit in all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. The date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) in this case was 14-01-1997. This is a case where possession was taken even before the award was passed. In LAA.No.245/07 2 terms of Section 23(1A), the appellant will be entitled for additional amount under Section 23(1A) in this case during the period from 14-01-1997 till 28-09-1998 when possession was taken. The judgment and decree will stand modified to the above extent. 3. Similarly, interest under Section 34 is payable at the rate of 9% during the first year from date of taking over of possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% . Therefore, the appellant will be entitled for interest on the award amount from 28-09-1998 at the rate of 9% per Annum during the first year and thereafter till date of payment at the rate of 15% per Annum. The judgment and decree under appeal is modified to that effect. 4. It was Ext.A1 which was relied on by the appellant in support of his claim for enhanced land value. Ext.A1 reveals a centage value of Rs. 18,000/- per cent. Ext.A1 was rejected by the reference court on the reason that unlike the property under acquisition, Ext.A1 was town property . But the Commissioner's report shows that though not in the heart land of the town, the acquired property was situated at a distance of 30 metres from Adhur Police Station. Ext.C1 report is also to the effect that acquired property had commercial potentialities. LAA.No.245/07 3 According to us, relying on Ext.A1, the learned Subordinate Judge could have granted some enhancement in land value to the appellant/claimant. Taking into account Ext.A1 and the other evidence available in the case, we refix the land value of the properties under acquisition at Rs. 6700/- per cent. This means that the appellant will be entitled for enhanced land value over and above what was awarded to him by the awarding officer and the reference court at Rs. 1544/- per cent. We award enhanced land value at the rate of Rs. 1544/- per cent for each cent of land acquired from the appellant. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. It i needless to mention that on the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible by virtue of our refixation under this judgment, the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act . But in the circumstances, parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. LAA.No.245/07 4 sv.