IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 357 of 2011(D) -------------------------- LAR.29/2009 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------------ P.E. SAHASRANAMAN, 78 YEARS, S/O. EASWARA IYER,RETIRED ASSISTANT POSTAL DIRECTOR, NEAR LAKSHMI NARAYANA TEMPLE, PALLIPURAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.ZOHRA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA (GENERAL), NO.I, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPLITY,PALAKKAD - 678 001. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.T.K.MOHANAN R2 BY SRI. V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.A.R.NIMOD, SRI.C.A.ANOOP, SRI.MATHEWS RAJU. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- LAA.NO. 357 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose ,J. Claimant is in appeal. His property in Palakkad Village (within the area of Palakkad Municipal Town) was acquired pursuant to section 4(1) notification published on 5.10.2008 for the purpose of construction of a link road from T.B. road to big Bazar road so as to connect it to the B.O.C road. The property under acquisition was house property with house belonging to the petitioner, a retired Assistant Postal Director, presently aged 78 years. The land value was awarded @ Rs.1,35,000/- per cent. For the building the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs.3,35,184/-. Before reference court the claimant relied on Exts.A1, A2 and A3 apart from Ext.C1 Commissioner's report and Ext.C1(a) plan filed by the Commissioner. Very strong reliance was placed on Ext.A1, a letter issued by the Village Officer on 19.12.2007 which will indicate that in respect of the property situated not far away from the property in question LAA.357/2011 2 the village officer recommended value of Rs.6,48,375/- per cent. The Village Officer was examined as AW2 and he proved Ext.A1 letter. But in cross examination he would explain that a mistake had crept into in Ext.A1, in that the rate shown by him was intended to be for one Are and not for one cent. It appears that the above explanation offered by AW2 found favour with the learned Subordinate Judge. Ext.A1 was a pre-notification document pertaining to a very large extent of land. Ext.A1 was in respect of land situated at a distance of one and half k.m. away from the property reflecting a land value of Rs.4,68,000/-. Ext.A1 was discarded by the learned Subordinate Judge on the reason that the property is situated one and half km. away from the acquired property. Relying on Exts.C1 and C1(a) and other evidence available in the case the learned Subordinate Judge himself entered a finding that the property is situated in an area where commercial importance is highest in Palakkad town. It was also noticed that the property was situated adjacent to the several commercial establishments including Alukas Jewellery, Alappat Jewellery and Mangalam tower apart from other public institutions. Learned Subordinate Judge despite all this, did not LAA.357/2011 3 become inclined to accept the recommendation of the Advocate Commissioner that the value of the property was Rs.10 lakh per cent. 2. We have heard the submissions of Smt. M.A.Zohra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. V.T.K.Mohanan,learned senior Government Pleader. We have heard Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned Senior counsel for the requisitioning authority, Palakkad Municipality. We have made a thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence. Finding entered by the learned Subordinate Judge in the impugned judgment which are to the effect that the property is situated in an area where commercial importance is highest in Palakkad Town is not under challenge by the Government or the requisitioning authority. We are not in a position to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having accepted the explanation offered by AW2 regarding the rate shown in Ext.A2. If the explanations were correct the same would have been borne out by some document kept under the custody of the Government. At any rate Ext.A2 situated 1 ½ km. away in an area which is not comparable in commercial importance to the area of the acquired property itself reflected land value of LAA.357/2011 4 Rs.4,68,000/- per cent. According to us, there was every justification for awarding a value of atleast Rs.4 lakh per cent. But we find that in the appeal the claim is limited to Rs.3,42,578/- per cent. We refix the land value of the acquired property at Rs.3,42,578/- per cent. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to accept the recommendations of the Commissioner regarding the building value also. The Commissioner recommended the value of the building to be Rs.4 lakhs. We notice that the building in question was valued by the Land Acquisition Authority in accordance with the schedule of rates published by the PWD. Keeping in mind the principle the construction of building as per the schedule of rates published the rate is not pragmatic preposition, there is justification for awarding the appellant at 35% of what is awarded as building value by the Land Acquisition Officer. But we notice that the claim of the appellant is limited to Rs.64,816/-. We allow to the appellant a further amount of Rs.64,816/- towards additional building value. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The LAA.357/2011 5 appellant will be entitled to statutory benefits on the total compensation admissible under section 23(2) 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant will be entitled for proportionate costs also. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ LAA.357/2011 6