IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 242 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.342/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- B. PRAKASAN, BANGLAVIL HOUSE, THOTTAPPALLY, PURAKKAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. DIRECTOR, INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, N.2347, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 199 OF 2006 & CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.761,775,776,779,/2004 & 624/2005 & 150,176,199,201, 204,205,212,219, 242,439,440/2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Appeal Nos.150,176,199,201,205,212,219,242,439& 440/2006 are all appeals preferred by the claimants. L.A.A.Nos.761,775,776,779/2004 & 624/2005 are all appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority. These appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Purakkad Village in Alapuzha District for widening of National Waterway. Acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 24/8/1999. 2. In L.A.A.No.242/2006, which corresponds to L.A.R.No.342/2002, the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6,260/- per Are. The reference court under the judgment impugned in that case enhanced the same to Rs.20,000/- per Are, thus granting enhancement of 219% of the value awarded by the land acquisition officer. There was a building standing on the property involved in that case and for that building the awarding officer awarded value of Rs.2,74,598/- L.A.A.No.242/2006 2 which was enhanced by the reference court under the impugned judgment by Rs. 45,766/- , thus granting 20% enhancement over the building value awarded by the land acquisition officer. 3. In L.A.A.No.204/2006, which corresponds to L.A.R.No.115/2002, the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per Are, which was refixed by the reference court under the impugned judgment in that appeal by Rs.13,740/-, thus granting 219% enhancement over what is awarded by the land acquisition officer. 4. In all other cases the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6829/- per Are and the reference court refixed the same at rates ranging between 14,500/- per Are to Rs.25,000/- per Are. The claimants in their appeals contend that the enhancement granted by the reference court is inadequate. The enhancement granted is assailed by the requisitioning authority in their appeals stating that enhancement granted is excessive. 5. We have heard the submissions of Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned counsel for the claimants and those of Sri.V.Santharam, learned standing counsel for the requisitioning L.A.A.No.242/2006 3 authority - Inland Waterways Authority of India. We have also heard the submissions of the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji. Our attention was drawn by Sri.Santharam to our own judgment in L.A.A. No.1218/2005 series dated 24/6/2009. We have under that judgment dealt with cases pertaining to acquisition for the same purpose in the same village pursuant to the same notification. Under the judgments impugned in those appeals also, the reference court had granted enhancement at varying rates. The evidence which is adduced in these cases is substantially same and the contentions raised by the parties in these cases are substantially same as the contentions raised in those cases. Under our judgment in those appeals, we interfered with the judgment and decree of the reference court and refixed the land value of the property in Purakkad village at a uniform rate of 110% over and above the rates awarded by the land acquisition officer. Thus, properties for which the land acquisition officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6829/- per Are , we had refixed the land value at a uniform rate of 14,350/- per Are. For the reasons stated in that judgment, the judgment impugned in these cases are also liable L.A.A.No.242/2006 4 to be interfered. 6. Accordingly, we set aside the judgments and decrees impugned in all these appeals and refix the value of land for which the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6829/- at Rs.14,350/-. Similarly on the same reasons, we refix the value of the land in L.A.A. Nos.242/2006 and 204/2006 corresponding to L.A.R.Nos. 342/2002 & 115/2002 respectively at the rate of Rs.13,150/- per Are. 7. L.A.A. No.242/2006 is the only case where a building is existed on the acquired property. As already stated, the reference court has granted enhancement only by 20% over what is awarded by the land acquisition officer. Having regard to the well known fact that the PWD valuation in accordance with the PWD schedule of rates is not realistic and that even the PWD tenders out its works at 30% or even more percentage above their schedule of rates, we are of the view that the appellants in that case is entitled for a further amount of Rs.22,883/- towards building value. Therefore, we award to the claimant in that case a further amount of Rs.22,883/- towards value of the building. 8. The appeals filed by the requisitioning authority and L.A.A.No.242/2006 5 L.A.A.242/2006 are allowed to the extent indicated herein above. It is needless to mention that the claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act on the total refixed compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of our refixation of the compensation under this judgment. In the circumstances, parties are directed to suffer their costs in the appeal. L.A.A.Nos.176,199,204,150,205,212 & 201/2006 will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk