IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1084 of 2000(A) --------------------------- LAR.177/1984 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT -------------- MOLY JOHN, PULIKKAL BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.CHAKKAPPAN KALLIATH SRI.DAVIES KALLIATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA. 2. GCDA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GCDA BUILDING, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20. ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU FOR R2 STANDING COUNSEL FOR GCDA R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI BASANT BALAJI. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- LAA 1084 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 30, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimant and the case pertains to acquisition of land in Elamkulam village at the instance of the 2nd respondent GCDA for the purpose of implementation of its Elamkulam Extension Scheme. The relevant sec.3(1) notification was on 21.11.1978. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4615/- per are for 1.75 ares of dry land and at the rate of Rs.2880/- per are for 26.58 ares of wet land. The reference court in the first instance would re-fix the market value of the dry land under acquisition at Rs.10,205/- per are and that of the wet land under acquisition at Rs.9417/- per are. In appeal this court set aside the judgment of the reference court and remanded the matter. The impugned judgment has been passed pursuant to the order of remand. Under the impugned judgment the value of dry land has been fixed at Rs.14820/- per are and that of the wet land has been fixed at Rs.12350/- per are. Though several documents were produced, the learned Subordinate Judge would place reliance on Ext.A12 judgment LAA 1084 OF 2000 2 which is a relevant document and the present enhancement is in conformity with the enhancement granted in Ext.A12. 2. We heard the submissions of Sri Davies Kalliath, learned counsel for the appellant, and also those of Sri S.B.Premachandra Prabhu, standing counsel for the GCDA as well as that of Sri Basant Balaji, Sr. Government Pleader, for the Government. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below went wrong in not placing reliance on Ext.A3. He submitted that under Ext.A3 the market value of land in that area had been determined by the reference court way back in 1972 at Rs.8000/- per cent. Learned counsel requested for enhancement to be granted based on Ext.A3. Counsel would then submit that the court below ought to have granted all statutory benefits inclusive of interest on the solatium component to be calculated at the rate of 30% of the market value in view of the provisions of the Central Land Acquisition Act. 4. All the submissions of Mr. Davies Kalliath was very seriously resisted by Sri Premachandra Prabhu who was supported in his submissions by Sri Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader. Mr. Prabhu referred to our own judgment in LAA.264/2000 and submitted that even for the land involved in that case which, by all standards, was superior to the land LAA 1084 OF 2000 3 involved in this case, this court fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.12000/- only. He submitted that Ext.A3 cannot be taken into account since it is only an order in an Electricity OP and the land value was only tentatively fixed therein for the purpose of determining the compensation to be awarded towards determination of land value for the drawl of high tension lines. Such fixation cannot be compared with determination of market value in terms of sec.23 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the impugned judgment thoroughly. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in not relying on the market value reflected in Ext.A3 order in Electricity OP. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in Ext.A3 the fixation of market value was not for the purpose of determining the market value primarily, but for determining the compensation to be awarded towards injurious affection due to drawal of electricity lines. It is doubtful whether all the parametres which were applicable for determination of market value under sec.23 of the Land Acquisition Act were applied in that order. Ext.A12 was a relevant judgment relied on by the claimants themselves. We find that the claimant appellant has LAA 1084 OF 2000 4 been awarded enhancement in terms of Ext.A12. We do not find any warrant for increasing the land value fixed under the impugned judgment. At the same time we find elements of genuineness in the grievance of the appellant that he has not been paid the statutory benefits in terms of the Central Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act 68/1984. The award of the officer in this case was passed on 10.3.1982. This means that in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (AIR 1995 SC 1012) that the claimant will not be entitled for the benefit of sec.23 (1A), but he is entitled for all benefits admissible under sec.23(2) i.e. solatium at 30% and sec.28 (interest for the first year at 9% and for the succeeding years at 15%) on the total compensation to which he becomes eligible inclusive of the solatium component. The appeal stands allowed to the above limited extent, but in the circumstances the parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/- LAA 1084 OF 2000 5 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------ L.A.A. 1084 Of 2000 JUDGMENT ------------------------------ 30.6.2009