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 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 629 of 2005() & C.O.NO.38/2009 ------------------------- LAR.408/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT AND A RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. DHANAPALAN, NADUVILEKKATTIL, THOTTAPPALLI, PURAKKAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA- (SPL. TAHSILDAR (LA) N.W.NO.III, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR FOR R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.629 OF 2005 &C.O.NO.38/2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The appeal is preferred by the requisitioning authority- Inland Waterways Authority of India and the memorandum of cross objection is filed by the claimant. 2. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Purakkad village of Alappuzha District for the purpose of widening of narrow stretches of National Waterways No.III pursuant to section 4(1) notification published on 24/8/1999. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6829/- per Are, which was refixed by the reference court at Rs.15,000/- per Are. Toilet and compound wall also existed on the property under acquisition. For those structures, the land acquisition officer awarded value of Rs.21,705/- per Are. The claimant would claim enhancement over this amount on the basis of Ext.A3 valuation statement prepared by the retired Executive Engineer of the Public Works Departments. Under Ext.A3, the engineer had recommended value of Rs.91091/- as the prevailing LAA.No.629/2005 2 cost of material and labour charges as on 2/8/2004. Ext.A3 was not relied on by the reference court on the reason that the rates given therein is for period subsequent to Section 4(1) notification and also on the reason that the author of Ext.A3 was not examined. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.V.Santharam, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.D.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant cross objector. Sri.Santharam would assail the judgment of the reference court to the extent it pertains to refixation of land value on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. Mr.Anilkumar would address us on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of cross objection submitting that enhancement of land value granted is inadequate. He would assail the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the value of structures even more forcefully. According to him, Ext.A3, which was issued by a competent engineer should not have been discarded. Meeting the argument of Sri.Santharam that Ext.A3 pertains to subsequent date, Sri.Anilkumar submitted that it is always possible to make appropriate deductions by considering the LAA.No.629/2005 3 difference in the dates. As his last submission, Sri.Anilkumar requested that the matter be remanded to the reference court, so that an opportunity is received for examining the author of Ext.A3. Sri.Santharam would oppose the request for remand tooth and nail. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We notice our own judgment dated 1/7/2009 in LAR Nos.107,162,173 & 180/2006. Those were all cases pertaining to acquisition of land in the same village for which the land acquisition officer has awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6829/- per Are itself. Under that judgment, we had refixed the land value at Rs.14,350/- per Are. For all the reasons stated in that judgment, the value of land under acquisition in this case is also liable to be refixed at Rs.14,350/- per Are. Accordingly, we refix the value of land under acquisition at Rs.14,350/- per Are. Now, we come to the question of correct amount to be amount awarded for structures which existed on the acquired property. Despite the opposition of Sri.Santharam, we feel that opportunity should be granted to the cross objector claimant for adducing evidence for substantiating his claim for further LAA.No.629/2005 4 amount towards structure value. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree so far as it pertains to value of structures which existed on the property and remand the LAR back to the reference court for the purpose of redetermining the total compensation to be awarded to the claimant towards the value of structures. The reference court will afford an opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence on the above question. Further enquiry will be conducted and revised judgment will be passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at the earliest and at any rate within four months of the parties entering appearance before that court. The parties will appear before the reference court on 18/8/2009. Refund the full court fee paid on the memorandum of cross objection to the counsel for the cross objector. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk