IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 621 of 2000() ------------------------- LAR.502/1993 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS -------------- 1. BHARGAVAN, CHAPRAYIL KANJOOR, KOTTACKAKAM MURI CHEPPAD 2. SUSEELA, CHAPRAYIL KANJOOR, KOTTACKAKAM MURI CHEPPAD BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ADDL. GOVT. PLEADER, MAVELIKKARA 2. N.T.P.C., KAYAMKULAM ADV. SRI.V.J.JOSEPH FOR R2 SRI.A.DINESH RAO FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009 LONG WITH LAA NO. 983 OF 2000, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.Nos. 621 & 983 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. These appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Chingoli village pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 17/04/1990. L.A.A.No.983/2000 is preferred by the requisitioning authority - NTPC and L.A.A.No.621/2000 is preferred by the claimant. The total extent of land acquired was 8.20 Ares, out of which 5.60 Ares was treated by the land acquisition officer as wet land and 2.60 Ares was treated as reclaimed land. For wet lands, the land acquisition officer fixed land value at the rate of Rs. 2220/- per Are and for the reclaimed lands, the land acquisition officer granted additional amounts towards reclamation charges. 2. Under the impugned judgment, the reference court has refixed the value of wet lands at Rs. 4400/- per Are as against a claim of Rs. 10,000/- per Are submitted by the claimant. The reference court did not become inclined to treat the reclaimed lands differently since LAA.Nos.621 & 983 of 2000 2 according to that court reclamation was done by the claimants without obtaining previous permission from the concerned authorities under the Land Utilisation Order. Therefore the reference court granted only a uniform rate of Rs. 4400/- per Are for the total extent of 8.20 Ares under acquisition. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.B.Premnath, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and those of the learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority Sri.V.J.Joseph. We have perused the LCR which is available, particularly the mahazer prepared by the land acquisition officer at the time of taking over of possession. We are unable to accept the argument of Sri.B.Premnath that the land acquisition court should have granted Rs. 10,000/- per Are for the wet lands under acquisition since we agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the evidence will not support a finding that the land value is more than what is now granted under the impugned judgment. At the same time, we find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel that the court below was not just in ignoring that 2.60 Ares out of the property under acquisition had been already reclaimed as a house LAA.Nos.621 & 983 of 2000 3 site. The mahazer reveals that upon that portion there existed a fairly old house duly numbered by the local authority , three yielding coconut trees and other trees like one teak, three Anjilis, one jack fruit tree and one Mango tree. The land acquisition authority itself treated 2.60 Ares forming part of the acquired property as reclaimed land and granted additional amounts towards reclamation charges. According to us, the court below should not have relied on the land utilisation order to deny higher value in respect of the above portion of the acquired property since the government itself did not have a contention that the reclamation was unauthorised. It is seen that another Division Bench of this court to which one of us (PCK(J) was a party dealing with other case pertaining to the same acquisition fixed value of dry land by Rs. 12,000/- per Are. 4. We however find some force in the submission of the requisitioning authority that it is not proper to treat the reclaimed land as equivalent to pukka dry land. According to us, the reclaimed land will be slightly inferior to Pukka dry land. In that view of the matter, we fix the market value of the reclaimed land involved in this case LAA.Nos.621 & 983 of 2000 4 extending to 2.60 Ares at Rs.8,800/- per Are ( Rupees eight thousand eight hundred). L.A.A.No.621/2000 will stand allowed to that extent. 5. We feel that it is a legitimate grievance which is being voiced by Sri.B.Premnath when he submits that the court below went wrong in not granting any enhancement for the building which existed on the acquired property. Going by the mahazer, the value of the building was more than Rs. 5,000/-. We notice from the mahazer which is not disputed even by the requisitioning authority that it was a tiled building with two rooms and a Chimney and that there was a well also appurtenant to the building. In the detailed valuation statement what the land acquisition officer has done is to adopt the valuation furnished by the NTPC and award only a lump sum of Rs. 1,200/- . According to us, the court below should have granted atleast Rs.5,000/- towards value of the building. The appellant in L.A.A.No.621/2000 will be entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 3,800/- ( Rupees three thousand eight hundred) towards value of building. In the result, L.A.A.No.621/2000 is allowed. The refixation of land value in respect of 5.60 Ares from out of the property under LAA.Nos.621 & 983 of 2000 5 acquisition at Rs. 4,400/- per Are is confirmed. The value of 2.60 Ares described in the mahazer as reclaimed land is redetermined at Rs. 8,800/- per Are and the appellant will be entitled for enhanced land value on that basis. This appellant is awarded additional amount of Rs. 3,800/- towards value of building. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1 A) and also Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. But in the circumstances, the parties are directed to suffer their costs throughout. L.A.A.No.983/2000 will stand dismissed without costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.Nos.621 & 983 of 2000 6