IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 459 of 2009(D) -------------------------- LAR.431/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- VAHIDA NAWAZ, W/O. A.A. MOHAMMED NAWAZ, BINANI ZINC COLONY, BINANIPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H - 1, KAKKANAD. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H (B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 459 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant and the case pertains to acquisition of land and building Cheranelloor Village for the purpose of widening national highway 17. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 14-3- 2002. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,25,400/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned judgment, on evaluating the evidence would re-fix the land value at the rate of Rs.1,63,020/-, thus awarding enhancement at 30% over the land value awarded by the L.A. Officer. For the building which existed on the property including the compound wall and the gate the L.A.O. Awarded compensation at Rs.4,65,301/-. The appellant's claim towards compensation for the building and other structures was Rs.10 lakhs. He relied on Ext.A3 LAA. No. 459/09 - 2 - commission report and on the evidence adduced by AW2 the expert engineer who assisted the commissioner and AW3, the commissioner. The court below relied on Ext.A1 judgment and found on the basis of Ext.A1 that the claimant will be entitled for enhancement in land value to the tune of 40%. However, under the decree which is ultimately passed the actual enhancement granted towards land value is only 30%. The Court below did not place any reliance on Ext.A3 report or the evidence of AW2 expert engineer. This was because there was some discrepancy in the door number of the building mentioned in the report and also because the original DVS pertaining to the building, on the basis of which the original compensation was awarded for the building, was not made available either to the court or to the expert. In this appeal the appellant impugns the alleged inadequacy of the land value and the building value. LAA. No. 459/09 - 3 - 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.A.A.Mohammed Nazir, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, senior Govt. Pleader. Copies of the commissioner's report and the testimony of AW2 were placed before us and we have perused the same. The learned Govt. Pleader herself would very fairly bring to our notice the judgment of this Court in LAA. No. 1312 of 2008 pertaining to acquisition of another piece of land pursuant to the very same notification. It is seen that in that judgment we have granted enhancement by 45% over the land value awarded by the L.A. Officer. We are of the view that in the light of that judgment the appellant herein is entitled to have the value of his land re-fixed at Rs.1,81,830/- per Are. Accordingly, we re-fix the land value at Rs.1,81,830/- per Are. 3. It is true that Ext.A3 commissioner's report is not a report on the basis of inspection conducted pursuant to the LAA. No. 459/09 - 4 - order of the Land Acquisition Reference Court. But even then, Ext.A3 was placed on record in the case and AW-2 was examined also. Though it is true that the expert did not have the advantage to compare the original DVS relied on by the land acquisition authority we feel that A3 is not completely irrelevant. A3 is prepared by a highly qualified engineer. We are of the view that some credence should be attached to A3 and also to the evidence of AW2. On reappraising the evidence in the case, especially A3 and AW2's oral testimony we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards value of the buildings and other structures which existed on the acquired property. Accordingly, we award Rs.2 lakhs to the appellant towards the value of buildings and other structures. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. Even though Mr.Mohammed Nazir, learned counsel for the LAA. No. 459/09 - 5 - appellant submitted that there was delay in the matter of payment of a part of the compensation originally awarded and the learned counsel requested that a direction be issued for payment of interest on that part of the compensation which was paid later we are not inclined to accede to this request. We however, did not foreclose the appellant's remedy before a civil court in this regard. We will only clarify that on the total compensation which is paid to the appellant he will be entitled for interest as admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. The registry will issue decree copy to the appellant only after ensuring that the entire balance court fee is paid PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-