IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 148 of 2003() ------------------------- LAR.NO.7/01 OF SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ------------------- SOMAN, CHENGORAPALLIL, VANDANAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 -------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. BUILDING DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT BALANCE COURT FEE NOT REMITTED. NO REPRESENTATION EVEN TODAY. APPEAL IS REJECTED. 2-6-08 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- L.A.A.No.148 of 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th October, 2007. J U D G M E N T The claimant in L.A.R.No.7/2001, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Alappuzha, is the appellant. The appeal is filed by the claimant complaining inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Subordinate Judge. An area of 15.07 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.48/4A2-I and 48/4A2-2 was acquired for the purpose of Alappuzha Medical College. An amount of Rs.55,302/= was awarded as compensation. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant himself has filed this appeal. 2. The claimant has taken out a commission. The Commissioner filed Exts.C1 and C2 reports. The report of the commissioner shows that of the 15.07 Ares of land acquired, 6.02 Ares of land is re-claimed and remaining area was still lying at a depth of 1 ½ feet for the ground level. The Commissioner reported that for reclaiming wet land, at least an amount of Rs.22000/= per cent was necessary. In order to substantiate the claim for additional compensation, appellant produced Ext.A1 judgment passed by the L.A.A. No.148 OF 2003 2 same Court in L.A.R.No.82/1997. The report of the Commissioner shows that Ext.A1 property is dry land and the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for that property was Rs.9593/= per Are, and the court had enhanced the same to Rs.18,495/= per Are. The material on record shows that another portion of the property was also acquired and in respect of that property, there was a reference to the court, and the same was numbered as L.A.R.No.88/1990. The property involved in L.A.R.No.88/1990 was having tarred road as frontage. In that case also, claimants produced Ext.A1 judgment. The learned Subordinate Judge, after considering the merits of both the properties, awarded 80% of the amount awarded in Ext.A1 judgment to the claimant in L.A.R.No.88/1990. The learned Subordinate Judge compared the properties involved in three cases and came to the conclusion that property involved in this case is situated at a lesser important area, and it is having no road access and a portion of it is reclaimed and balance portion was still lying as wet land. Considering all aspects, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed 60% of the amount awarded in Ext.A1 judgment as enhancement to this property. Challenging the compensation awarded in the other case, the claimant in that case filed an appeal before this Court, and that appeal was also dismissed, finding that enhancement awarded L.A.A. No.148 OF 2003 3 was reasonable. In view of the nature and lie of the property involved in both the cases, the enhancement awarded by the Subordinate Judge in this case is reasonable, and does not call for any interference. So, there is no scope for any interference, and the appeal is only to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- L.A.A.No. 148 of 2003 J U D G M E N T Dated: 24th October, 2007. -------------------------------