IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 LA.App..No. 1915 of 2002(Y) --------------------------- LAR.128/1998 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------- C.KUNHIKANNAN, S/O.URUVADI, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF CHOORAKKAT URUVADI, PUTHIYAKANDOM P.O., CHERUVATHOOR, KASARAGOD. BY ADVS. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KANNUR-2. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON 15/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 1915 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.128 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Payyannur. The reference was under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. An extent of 0.6651 hectare of land comprised in R.S. No.292/4 and 0.0610 hectare of land comprised in R.S. No.214/2 of Ramanthali Village were acquired for the establishment of Naval Academy at Ezhimala. The appellant/claimant applied for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act based on the judgment in L.A.R. No.124 of 1987 of the same court. In support of the claim for enhanced land value, the claimant himself was examined as AW.1 and copies of the judgment in L.A.R. Nos.123 of 1987 and 98 of 1992 were produced as Exts.A1 and A2 respectively. The respondent examined CW.1 and produced Exts.B1 to B5. The report submitted by the Commissioner was L.A.A.NO.1915/2002 2 marked as Ext.C1. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. The court below by the impugned judgment granted enhancement of Rs.38,870.36. The claim for compensation towards improvements, compound wall and soil conservation bund was negatived. 2. The appellant/claimant contended before us that the property covered by Ext.A1 judgment was valued at Rs.2000/- per cent by the court below while adjudicating the claim for enhancement of compensation. The appellant also relied on Ext.A2 judgment which relates to the property in L.A.R. No.98 of 1992 for which Rs.1500/- per cent was awarded. Exts.A1 and A2 judgments were pressed into service contending that they also relate to the same notification and, therefore, the claimant is entitled to the same benefits. The Commissioner who inspected the property reported that the acquired land has got road facility whereas the property covered by Exts.A1 and A2 has no road facility and that the land covered by Ext.A1 is situated about 50 metres away from Ramanthali Naval Academy road. The Commissioner also reported that the property covered by Ext.A2 has no direct road facility and that the western boundary of the acquired land is the Ramanthali Naval Academy road. It is not known as to whether the road was formed before or after Section 3(1) notification. The L.A.A.NO.1915/2002 3 Commissioner inspected the site after 16 years. But the Commissioner compared the acquired land with the property covered by Exts.A1 and A2 and reported that the properties are more or less similar in nature. Ext.C1 report further shows that a U.P. School, Public library, Milk Society and shops existed very near to the acquired land. It is also reported that the valuation of land, improvements and the building is calculated based on the assessment year 1984. According to the Commissioner, the value of land as on the date of Section 3(1) notification was Rs.2000/- per cent. 3. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the land value awarded by the court below requires refixation. Considering the price fixed in Exts.A1 and A2 and the locational importance of the acquired land, we are of the view that the acquired land shall fetch a price of Rs.1100/- per cent. Accordingly, we refix the land value at the rate of Rs.1100/- per cent. All other findings of the court below are confirmed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that the Collector and the court below failed to grant statutory benefits for the determined amount under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is made clear that the appellant - claimant is entitled to the statutory benefits for the redetermined amount. Learned counsel also pointed out that in the judgment under appeal, there is a mistake in the L.A.A.NO.1915/2002 4 calculation. Hence, it is further directed that whatever mistakes have crept in, the same shall be corrected and the appellant is entitled to get the corrected amount. The land value shall be worked out at the enhanced rate for the entire extent and the amount awarded for the portion of the property determined as standing space for bearing trees shall be deducted. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree are modified refixing the land value at the rate of Rs.1100/- per cent. The appellants/claimants are entitled to realise the amount after duly adjusting the amounts already received. The appellants are also entitled to interest on solatium and all other eligible statutory benefits. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ L.A.A.NO.1915/2002 5 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A.NO1915/2002 JUDGMENT 15TH JANUARY, 2008