IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 459 of 2006(D) -------------------------- LAR.118/1988 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- UMADEVI HEMALATHA, RAJUNIVAS, MELETHUMELE MODERN HILL, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (FROM T.C.1528, KUNNUKUZY, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE). BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JAYAMANSION, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR(NO VAK) FOR TRIDA K.A.JALEEL(NO VAK) FOR TRIDA SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 459 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 25 th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. Her property situated in a very important locality of Thiruvananthapuram city and in close proximity to the Secretariat was acquired for the purpose of construction of a shopping complex for TRIDA. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 28/11/1978. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.23,986/- per Are. On the above land, there existed a two storied building having 6 rooms in the ground floor and two room in the first floor. The building in fact occupied the entire land, which are in extent of little less than two cents. For the building, the claim was that the claimant was getting a total monthly rent of Rs.1500/-. The appellant's claim for building value was Rs.3,00,000/- and her claim for land was Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. The evidence before the Reference Court consisted of oral evidence of AW1, Exts.R1 to R4 and the report of the advocate commissioner. The court below, on evaluating the evidence, L.A.A..No.459/2006 2 would refix the land value at Rs.60,000/- per Are. Similarly, the court below would refix the value of the building, which had been valued by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.90,835.88, at Rs.1,98,197/-. 2. In this appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant, she has raised various grounds and we have heard the submissions of Sri.Anchal C.Vijayan, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader. 3. Sri.Ancial C.Vijayan would draw our attention to the commission report and submitted that the property was situated in a commercially and politically most important locality of the Thiruvananthapuram city. According to him, 1,500/- Rupees was the rent derived by the claimant at the time of acquisition. Immediately after acquisition, before the building was demolished, the TRIDA let out the very same building to the same tenant at a much higher rent. The learned counsel submitted that the commission report will show that the building was 72 years old.It was quite a sturdy one and would have stood for another 30 years. The learned counsel requested that value L.A.A..No.459/2006 3 of the building be redetermined by the method of capitalisation of rental income adopting a multiplier of at least 20 and deducting one third towards maintenance charges. As for the market value of the land under acquisition, the learned counsel would rely on the various judgments including the judgment of A Division Bench of this court in Hindusthan O.C.Ltd. v. Damodaran Namboodiri & others (1986 KLT 1013) and for the argument regarding the building value, the learned counsel relied on the judgment in State of Travancore Cochin v. Rama Krishna Iyer Narayana Iyer ( AIR 1955 T.C.132). 4. All the submissions of Sri.Anchal C.Vijayan were very stiffly opposed by Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader. She submitted that the appellant relied on Ext.A1 judgment, under which the Reference Court had awarded particular land value for the land under acquisition in that judgment and the Reference Court under the impugned judgment followed Ext.A1 and granted proportionate increase. That being the position, the appellant is estopped from claiming more land value. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there was no documentary evidence at all regarding the monthly rent L.A.A..No.459/2006 4 that was being derived by the appellant. In the absence of documentary evidence, it will not be proper to refix the value of the building on the basis that Rs.1,500/- is the monthly rent. At any rate, according to the learned senior Government Pleader, the building was 72 years old building, and could not have been expected to stand for more than 8 years. 5. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the evidence which is available before us. It is evident from Exts.R1 to R4 that the building was in possession of the tenant and that it was taken over from the possession of the tenant. The commission report will show that the property was situated in one of the most important localities of Thiruvananthapuram city which even at that time was the capital city of the State. Even though clear documentary evidence is not available as regards the rent that was being derived by the claimant, we are inclined to accept the version of the learned counsel for the appellant that the building was fetching total monthly rent of Rs.1500/-. The commission report will also show that though the building was 72 years old, it was not on the verge of collapse. It could have stood and fetched L.A.A..No.459/2006 5 monthly income for another 10 years . Keeping all these aspects in mind, we are of the view that, over and above the enhancement granted by the Reference Court towards value of the building, the appellant should be awarded at least Rs.35,000/- more towards the value of the building. Same is the position as regards the land value. We feel that land value at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Are fixed by the court below is too low. We refix the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.75,000/- per Are. 5. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits. While drawing up the decree, due regard will be had to the conditions imposed by this court while allowing CM.Appln. No.691/2006 in the L.A.A. The appeal is allowed as above, but no order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk