IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 197 of 2010() ------------------------------------ LAR.24/2003 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ---------------------------------- DR.M.C. DAMODHARAN, AGED 88 YEARS, S/O.M. CHANDU, "VIVEK", MAVOOR ROAD, KOTTOOLI VILLAGE, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN, SRI.S.K.SAJU, SMT.A.SIMI, SMT.VIDYA V.DEVAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE, REP. BY THE LEARNED GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.T.K. MOHANAN. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- LAA.NO. 197 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Claimant is in appeal. His land with building situated in Kottooli Village was acquired pursuant to section 4(1) notification dated 17.12.1999. The purpose of acquisition was widening of the road connecting Mavoor road and Kuthiravattom road. The land Acquisition Officer relied on the basis document and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.23,000/- per cent. The Reference Court relying on commissioner's report found that there was no comparison between the basis property and the acquired property and hence found that the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is low. Before the court below the claimant relied on Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A2 reflected a land value of Rs.5,00,000/- per cent. Ext.A2 was discarded and in our opinion rightly by the Sub Court for the reason that it pertains to properties in a different village. Ext.A1 was a document dated 9.8.1996. Ext.A1 related to a large extent of more than 30 cents. LAA.197/2010 2 Ext.A1 reflected a land value of Rs.90,000/- per cent. The court below would analyse Ext. A1 and come to the conclusion that Ext.A1 property was comparable to the acquired property. Yet learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to award even the rate reflected in Ext.A1 which is a document of 1996. This was for the reason that under this award the party will be getting statutory benefits including solatium at the rate of 30%. It is clear to our mind that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was not proper. Statutory benefit of solatium is to be awarded in view of the compulsory nature of acquisition and it is due to the party in terms of the law enacted by the parliament viz. section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. On the basis of Ext.A1 what the learned Subordinate Judge should have done was to make additions for the passage of about two years time. Having reappreciated the entire evidence particularly Ext.A1 we are of the view that there is every justification for granting to the appellant atleast Rs.1,00,000/- . The appeal is allowed and value is refixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. The appellant will be entitled for statutory benefits under section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However parties are directed to LAA.197/2010 3 suffer their respective costs. Registry will issue decree copy only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ LAA.197/2010 4