IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 219 of 1999(D) & CROSS OBJECTION NO.112/2004 -------------------------- LAR.53/1995 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT -------------- STATE OF KERALA BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT --------------- 1. KUNDILE VEETTIL PATTI AMMA W/O LATE SANKARAN NAIR VELLUR AMSOM, DESOM P.O. ANNUR, VIA. PAYYANNUR 2. RUGMINI D.NAIR, D/O LATE SANKARAN NAIR, VELLUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. ANNUR, VIA PAYYANNUR ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.219 OF 1999 & Cross Objection No.112/2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of establishment of Ezhimala Naval Acadamy. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 22/2/1983. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.409 per cent. The respondents did not seek reference under Section 18. However, on the basis of a relevant court judgment, under which the land value of the similar properties had been refixed at Rs.809/- per cent, the respondents applied under Section 28A. The land acquisition officer allowed the application under Section 28A and awarded them the land value of Rs.708/- per cent. Being dissatisfied, the claimants sought for reference under Section 28 A(3). The reference court under the impugned judgment considered the reference and refixed the land value at Rs.809/- per cent. The Government in this appeal impugns the judgment of the reference court. In the memorandum of cross objection, the L.A.A.No.219/1999 2 claimants also impugn the judgment of the reference court to the extent the claimants were not awarded value of improvements. According to the claimants, they were entitled for higher value than the land value given to the party in the judgment relied on. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader for the appellant and those of Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, learned counsel for the respondents claimants. The learned Government Pleader, apart from making submissions on the basis of the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum, highlighted before us that the reference court has committed a mistake of awarding 50% increase over the value awarded by the land acquisition officer under his original award towards value of the building. The learned counsel for the respondents per contra would submit that the property of the claimants in this case was superior to the property of the party to the judgment relied on. He submitted that enhancement of 50% granted towards the building value was inadequate. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed before us that the judgment of the reference court relied on by the claimants in their application under Section 28A has L.A.A.No.219/1999 3 attained finality. It is also not disputed before us that the property of the claimants in this case and the property of the party in the judgment relied on was acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification. Thus even the land acquisition authority found that the application under Section 28A was maintainable. If the application under section 28A was maintainable and the judgment relied on was a relevant judgment, then there was no reason why the same rate of land value, which has been granted to the party in the judgment relied on, could not be granted to the claimants in this case. The learned Subordinate Judge was correct in granting the same land value to the claimants in this case. We have no difficulty in approving the action of the reference court in awarding land value of Rs.809 per cent to the claimants in this case. We are however unable to accept the submissions made by Sri. Sergi Joseph Thomas in the context of claim for value of improvements. According to us, in a proceedings under Section 28A neither the awarding officer nor the reference court, entertaining the reference under Section 28A(3), expected to redetermine the value of the improvements L.A.A.No.219/1999 4 which existed on the acquired property. They are expected only to determine the value of the improvements on the basis of the court judgment relied on. According to us, by awarding enhancement towards value of structures, the reference court has acceded the limits of its power under Section 28A. To this extent, the appeal preferred by the Government will stand allowed. 4. We set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent it pertains to award of 50% enhancement in respect of the structural value which had been awarded by the land acquisition officer. At the same time, we notice some genuineness in the grievance voiced by Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas that the statutory benefits has not been awarded to his clients in full. It is made clear that the claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits in respect of total compensation paid to them i.e. statutory benefits admissible to the original amount awarded by the land acquisition officer under his award towards land value and also to enhancement of land value awarded to them by the court. There is some controversy at the Bar as to whether the statutory benefits was already paid to the cross objector with reference L.A.A.No.219/1999 5 to the amounts originally awarded by the land acquisition officer. We only clarify that the appellant is eligible for statutory benefits not only on the original amount determined by the land acquisition officer on the land value, but also on the amounts determined by the reference court as correct land value. 5. Judgment and decree under appeal will stand modified to the above extent only. The appeal and cross objection are disposed of accordingly. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants raised another argument. The argument was that the court below should have determined compensation by adopting the method of land value for the entire extent of land since such method will be more beneficial to the claimants. There is no serious opposition from the side of the government to this request. We therefore direct that the total compensation be decided for the entire land covered by the acquisition on the basis of the land value fixed under the judgment at Rs. 809/- per cent , whatever is paid to the claimants towards value of improvements by method of capitalisation of income by the land acquisition officer be L.A.A.No.219/1999 6 deducted for arriving at the total compensation payable to the respondents under this decree. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk/sv L.A.A.No.219/1999 7 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.219 OF 1999& Cross Objection No.112/2004 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 3rd August 2009