IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 400 of 2002(D) -------------------------- LAR.188/1999 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: --------------------------------- P.J. PAUL, CHERAYIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, PIPE LINE SOUTH, COCHIN-21, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT PARAYANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, ST.MARY'S NAGAR, KANDANAD. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPODENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA. 2. SSENIOR INSTALLATION MANAGER, B.P.C. LTD., IRUMPANAM, COCHIN-682 309. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.400 OF 2002 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the claimant pertaining to acquisition in Poonithura Village pursuant to a notification under Section 4 (1) published on 10/2/1998 for the purposes of the second respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The land acquisition officer categorised the properties acquired for this purposes, into three. The appellant's property was included in category No.2 i.e. properties having tarred road frontage. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,40,100/-. So also for the building, which stood on the property, the land acquisition officer awarded compensation of Rs.5,40,000/-. Before the reference court, the appellant produced two documents including one post notification document to support his claim for enhanced land value. The reference court did not become inclined to grant any enhancement in the land value and in our opinion the reference court was justified in not placing reliance on the documents L.A.A..No.400/2002 2 produced by the appellant. The reference court would confirm the land value at Rs.2,40,100/- awarded by the land acquisition officer. Coming to the compensation awarded for the building the reference court noticed that it was adopting the PWD schedule rates that the building had been valued by the land acquisition officer. Considering this aspect, what the reference court did was to grant 40% increase towards the claim for enhancement towards land value and also further enhancement towards the building value. 2. We have heard the submissions Sri. Biju Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader. There is no representation for the requisitioning authority. The appeal preferred by the requisitioning authority has already been dismissed for default. We will now consider the correct market value to be determined for the acquired properties. Sri.Biju Abraham placed strong reliance on the judgment of this court in L.A.A.620/2002 wherein the property, which had been included in category 2 was recatogarised by this court as the property included in category 1 and the value which had been awarded for the properties in L.A.A..No.400/2002 3 category No. 1 was awarded to this properties. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the properties in L.A.A.620/2002 and the properties in this case are adjacent properties and hence eligible for the same value. 3. We have gone through the judgment in L.A.A. No.620/2002. It is seen that this court in that judgment found that the properties in that case are enjoying frontage of as many as three roads including the service road of the National Highway. In the instant case, on our scanning on the materials on record including commissioner's report and testimony of RW1, we find that the acquired property was enjoying the frontage of two roads i.e. apart from the tarred road frontage which the property was enjoying, the frontage of the a pipeline road also. 4. Under the above circumstances, we are unable to accept the argument of Sri.Biju Abhram that the properties in this case were having all the advantages which the properties in L.A.A.620/2002 was having. At the same time, we feel that the appellant is entitled for slight increase in the market value of the land acquired in view of the additional road frontage which his property is enjoying. Under this circumstances, we refix the L.A.A..No.400/2002 4 market value of the acquired properties in this case at Rs.2,30,000/- per Are. 5. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled to all the statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act for the enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of refixation of the land value. We are unable to accept the appellant's plea for enhancement in the value of the building. We feel that the maximum amount that could have been awarded towards the building value on the basis of the evidence which was available in the case has been awarded by the reference court. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. The parties will suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk L.A.A..No.400/2002 5 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.400 OF 2002 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 1ST APRIL 2009