IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 533 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.235/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- GOPAKUMAR, ANANDA BHAVAN, MANGAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 533 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimant is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Reference Court. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of the National Highway Bye-pass. The property was in Mangad Village, within the area of the Kollam Corporation. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 11-11-1992. The entire properties acquired were categorised by the L.A. Officer into 5. The acquired property in this case was included in category No.1 – dry land having frontage of the Panchayat Road and lying close to the Mangad public market. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.14277/- per Are. Ext.A2 was one of the items of evidence produced by the claimant before the reference court. Ext.A2 was a document dated 14-11-1988. LAA. N0. 533/06 -2- A2 revealed a land value of Rs.17,901/- per Are. What the reference court did was to rely on Ext.A2 and re-fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per Are. The appellant had a claim for compensation for injurious affection of the remainder extent of the property extending to 2 cents. The learned Subordinate Judge did not award any amount towards this claim on the reason that evidence is not adduced. The appellant had a claim for enhanced value of the building which existed on the property for which the awarding officer had awarded Rs.1 lakh. The claim was Rs.3 lakhs, but nothing was awarded by the L.A. Court towards this count. The appellant's further claim was that he be awarded enhancement towards value of the trees which existed on the property. The court below did not award any additional amount towards value of trees on the reason that the evidence falls short of awarding any enhancement towards value of trees. LAA. N0. 533/06 -3- 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Subashchandra Bose, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt. Latha T.Thankappan, learned Govt. Pleader for the Government. Mr.Subashchandra Bose submitted that A2 was produced by the claimant only to show that even for that property which was situated very near to the basis land even in 1988 the value was Rs.17,901/- per Are. The learned counsel referred to annexure–I judgment of the same reference court confirmed by this court in LAA. No. 693 of 2006 wherein the land value was re-fixed at Rs.24,000/- per Are. The learned counsel submitted that annexure–I property was in category–3 and therefore there was every justification for granting proportionate increase in which case the land value will be re-fixed at Rs.34,500/-. Mr.Subashchandra Bose submitted that the appellant cannot be blamed for not having taken out a commission since the property was immediately taken possession of and the LAA. N0. 533/06 -4- entire building was demolished and removed. Same is the position regarding the value of trees. The appellant was prevented from taking out a commission due to the immediate taking over of possession and removal of trees by the concerned department. 3. The submissions of Mr.Subashchandra Bose were resisted by Smt.Latha T.Thankappan. She submitted that the appellant could have adduced evidence by taking out a commission if necessary by filing a separate suit. Commission could have been taken out for substantiating the claim for injurious affection even from the reference court. Having not done so, the appellant cannot be awarded enhanced compensation since such award will not be supported by any evidence. In reply, Mr.Subashchandra Bose placed before us the mahazar and valuation statement prepared by land acquisition authority at the time of acquisition. He submitted that there were five yielding LAA. N0. 533/06 -5- coconut trees and two yielding arecanut trees. There were two mahagani trees respectively aged 12 and 15 years. There were teak trees also aged between 5 years and 8 years. What has been awarded for all these is only a pittance, i.e., Rs.5304/-. 4. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment impugned. Annexure-I judgment pertaining to acquisition of properties for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification has attained finality in view of the judgment of this Court in LAA. No. 693 of 2006. The property under annexure-I was included by the L.A. Officer in category -3. As rightly submitted by Sri.Subashchandra Bose if the same proportionate increase is granted the value of the property under acquisition will have to be re-fixed at Rs.34,500/-. We are not inclined to grant so much of increase. But we feel that there is every justification for re-fixing the value of LAA. N0. 533/06 -6- the land under acquisition at Rs.30,000/- per Are. Accordingly, modifying the judgment under appeal we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.30,000/- per Are. 5. We notice an element of genuineness in the grievance voiced by the appellant regarding the compensation awarded for the building which existed on the property. It is of course true that the appellant did not take out a commission. But it is apparent that the valuation of the building was done by the land acquisition authority adopting PWD schedule of rates. It is well known that construction in terms of PWD schedule rates is not at all a practical proposition. Even the PWD tenders out its work at 25 to 35% above their schedule rates. We feel, taking that aspect into account, the appellant can be awarded a further amount of Rs.30,000/- towards value of building. Accordingly we award Rs.30,000/- to the appellant towards LAA. N0. 533/06 -7- value of building. 6. So also, we notice elements of genuineness in the grievance voiced by the appellant regarding his claim for injurious affection of the remainder property. The total extent of the property was 23 cents and after acquisition the remainder property is only 2 cents. The submission of Mr.Subashchandra Bose was that the remainder property is reduced to a tiny valueless bit. To accept this submission we don't find evidence. At the same time, we feel that the value of the remainder property would have gone down on account of the acquisition of the main chunk of the original holding. We feel that there is justification for awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards injurious affection. We award Rs.10,000/- towards injurious affection. 7. We notice existence of valuable trees including two mahagani trees, aged 15 and 12. There were five yielding coconut trees and 5 yielding arecanut trees. We feel the LAA. N0. 533/06 -8- amount awarded (Rs.5304/-) is ridiculously low. We award a further amount of Rs.10,000/- towards value of the trees. Appeal stands allowed re-fixing land value at Rs.30,000/- per Are and awarding further amounts of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively as stated herein. On the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment, he will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Appeal allowed without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-