IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CO.No. 102 of 2009 in L.A.A.NO.1712 OF 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.1712/2008 LAR.165/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT/ (RESPONDENT IN THE LAA) (S): -------------------- V.C.VIJAYAN, VADAKKETHARAYIL, KALAMPUR.P.O, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER ( APPELLANT IN THE LAA) --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER C.R.SHYAM KUMAR THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- Cross Objection No.102 of 2009 in L.A.A.No.1712 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J This memorandum of cross objection is filed by the claimant. His property in Velloor Village was acquired for the formation of twin box bridge across Kottappuram Thodu. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 19.11.2003. But the cross objector was dispossessed on the property way back on 3.11.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.7,675/- per Are. Before the reference court the cross objector relied on Exts.A1 to A3 and the oral evidence of AW1 and AW2. Ext.A1 was judgment in three other LARs pertaining to earlier acquisition. AW2 was the party to AW1. AW2 gave evidence that his property and the property under acquisition was comparable. Significantly not even formal counter oral evidence was adduced by the Government. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place complete reliance on Ext.A1. However, keeping Ext.A1 in mind CO No.102/2009 2 the learned Sub Judge granted enhancement and re-fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per Are. Under Ext.A1 the original land value of Rs.40,000/- per Are had been enhanced by the reference court to Rs.64,219/- per Are. In the memorandum of cross objection it is urged that the market value should have been redetermined as Rs.40,000/- per Are at least. It is also urged that the court below went wrong in not awarding Section 28 interest on the original compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Having considered the submissions addressed before us by Mr.Alex M.Scaria, the learned counsel for the cross objector and Mr.C.R.Shyam Kuamar, the learned Government Pleader and having gone through the impugned judgment and having made a quick re-appraisal of the evidence, we feel that the learned Subordinate judge could have placed some more reliance on Ext.A1. After all the properties covered by Ext.A1 and properties under acquisition both were enjoying road frontage, both were in the same village and Ext.A1 acquisition was much earlier. We are of the view that the value of the property under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at Rs.30,000/- per Are. It is accordingly fixed. The cross objector was dispossessed on 3.11.1993. The learned subordinate judge CO No.102/2009 3 under the impugned decree has awarded Section 28 interest on the enhanced compensation awarded by him with effect from 3.11.1993. But may be by omission Section 28 interest is not awarded on the original compensation with effect from 3.11.1993. We modified that part of the decree of the reference court and clarify that Section 28 interest will become admissible with effect from 3.11.1993 not only on the enhanced compensation as re-fixed under this judgment but also on the original compensation which was awarded to the appellant by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Cross Objection is allowed to the above extent. Cross Objector will be entitled for proportionate cost also. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab