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 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 120 of 2008(D) -------------------------- LAR.66/2005 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- THE ARCHDIOCESE OF VERAPOLY REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JEROME CHAMMANIKODATH, PROCURATOR, LATIN ARCHBISHOPS HOUSE, COCHIN 682 03 BY ADVS. MR. L.ALOYSIUS THOMAS MR. T.P.SAJAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SPL.TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI ADV. MR. BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 295 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.120 of 2008 and 295 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Both these appeals are preferred by claimants. The land under acquisition was the property in Thrikkakara north village at the behest of Kerala Water Authority for their augmentation of water supply to Kochi. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 5.10.1996. LAA.120/2008 corresponds to LAR.66/2005. LAA.295/2008 corresponds to LAR.67/2005. The property in LAR.66/2005 was included by the acquiring authority in category E, that is the property having frontage of Pipeline road. Property in LAR.67/2005 was included in category G, that is low lying property having frontage of Pipeline road. For the property in LAR.66/05 the LA Officer awarded a land value at Rs.78,810/- per Are corresponding to Rs.2000/- per cent. Similarly for the property in LAR.67/05, that is G category property, the LA Officer awarded land value @ Rs.70,050/- per Are corresponding to Rs.28,000/- per cent. Thus, for G category L.A.A.120 & 295/08 2 properties the Land Acquisition Officer awarded 87.5% of the value of property in E category. Before reference court the appellant relied mainly on Ext.A2 judgment. Ext.A2 judgment was in respect of acquisition in the same village pursuant to notification published either during the last month of 1992 or during the first month of 1993. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A2 judgment at all. According to the learned Sub Judge the Advocate Commissioner's report was not very convincing regarding the aspect of comparability of A2 property with the property under acquisition and that the learned Subordinate Judge was to adopt guess work applying rule of thumb and enhance land value at 25% over the value awarded by the reference court. 2. In these appeals several grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of reference court. Mr. Aloysius Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant addressed us in detail on all those grounds. According to him Ext.A2 was a relevant judgment and relying on A2, additions should have been granted taking into account passage of time as well as the relative importance of the property under acquisition. L.A.A.120 & 295/08 3 3. Mr. Babu Varghese, learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority would resist all submissions of Mr. Aloysius Thomas. According to him there is no warrant for interference with the impugned judgment. Mr. Babu Varghese was supported by the submissions by the learned senior Government Pleader Smt. Latha T. Thankappan. 4. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Aloysius Thomas to the judgment of this court in LAA.248/2007, which was authored by one among us (PCK(J)). He submitted that the above case was in respect of acquisition of land belonging to the very same appellant pursuant to a subsequent notification published on 6.1.1997. He submitted that under that judgment this court has re-fixed land value at Rs.54,000/- per cent. He pointed out that in terms of locational importance and advantages the property covered by that judgment was inferior to the property under acquisition since that property was situated at least half a kilometre away from the property under acquisition and about 1 k.m. away from National Highway margin. 5. We have anxiously considered rival submissions addressed before us. We have gone through the impugned L.A.A.120 & 295/08 4 judgment. We have scanned the items produced including judgment in LAA.248/2007. We are of the view that Ext.A2 judgment as well as the judgment of this court in LAA.248/2007 have relevance in determining the correct market value of the property under acquisition. Relying on the land value reflected in those two judgments we re-fix the market value of the land involved in LAR.66/2005 at Rs.57,540/- per cent. Similarly adopting the ratio maintained by the LA Officer between the value of two properties we re- fix the land value in LAR.67/05 (G category) at 87.5% of Rs.57,540/- per cent. 6. In LAA.120/2008 the appellant has another grievance. A total amount of Rs.40,468/- was awarded towards the value of the structures which existed in that property. Grievance is that no additional compensation was awarded towards the value of structures. Taking into account of the principle that construction of building in accordance with PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition we are inclined to award Rs.15,000/- to the appellant towards structure value. Accordingly Rs.15,000/- is awarded in LAA.120/08 towards structure value. Parties L.A.A.120 & 295/08 5 are directed to suffer their costs. Appeals stand allowed as above. It is needless to mention that the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb