IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 604 of 2009() ------------------------------------ LAR.69/2002 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ---------------------------------- P.V. MARIA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.V.C. JOSEPH V/251, VADAKKEL HOUSE, ASHOKAPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU, SMT.N.SUDHA, SRI.K.P.REMESAN, SRI.K.S.GOPI, SRI.ANTONY MATHEW, SRI.BINU B. SAMUEL. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 647 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.604, 647, 664, 673 and 972 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 Judgment Balakrishnan, J. The properties involved in these cases were acquired for establishing an industrial estate at Thamarassery in Raroth Village, Kozhikode Taluk. The properties were stated to have been originally held in common by the members of the same family. The notification under Section 4(1) in all these cases were published on 11.10.2001. 2. In all these cases, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.3172/- per cent. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, reference was sought. Before the court below, oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants as well as by the respondents. The Commissioner's reports were also marked. After analysing the entire evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge refixed the land value at Rs.12,000/- per cent. Though there were buildings and other structures for which the Land LAA 604/09 etc. 2 Acquisition Officer had given compensation, the court below did not grant any enhancement. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the court below could have granted proportionate enhancement if Ext.A10 had been considered. Ext.A10 is dated 23.2.2000. There was passage of time of one year and 7 months and so, if proportionate enhancement is given, the land value would have been much more than 100% enhancement granted by the court below. 3. It was also argued that Ext.A11 document dated 31.12.1999 reflected a land value of Rs.20,000/- per cent. The extent of the land covered by that document is 20 cents. It is situated near the National Highway. Therefore, the court below was not inclined to accept the value reflected in Ext.A11 also. However, taking note of the centage value of land reflected in Ext.A10, the court below refixed the land value at Rs.12,000/- per cent. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the land value is to be enhanced. The land value fixed by the court below is seen to be almost reaonable. However, considering all the aspects, we find the land value in all the cases can be refixed at Rs.12,250/- per cent and land value is refixed accordingly. LAA 604/09 etc. 3 4. The total amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the value of buildings and other structures in the property mentioned in LAA No.604/09 was fixed at Rs.8,87,455/-. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the report of the Commissioner, an Expert Engineer. It is seen from the report that the Commissioner had even awarded Rs.4,78,132/- as value for the pits constructed for planting coconut saplings. The court below did not place much reliance on the report of the Commissioner. There are other reasons also not to rely upon the report of the Engineer. That apart, the Engineer who valued the same was not examined also. Therefore, the court below was perfectly justified in not placing reliance on the Commissioner's report. However, taking note of the fact that the buildings and structures were valued following P.W.D. schedule of rates which would be slightly less than the value assessed by the officer, we are inclined to enhance the value of buildings slightly and structures. So, we enhance the value of buildings and structures by Rs.1,19,000/-, i.e., 24.8% in excess of the value of structures and buildings awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. The total amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the value of buildings and structures in LAA No.664/09 was LAA 604/09 etc. 4 Rs.3,64,439/-. Following almost the same rate; approximately 22.5%, the claimant/appellant is entitled to get a further amount of Rs.82,000/- as enhanced compensation. 6. The total amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer towards value of buildings and structures in LAA No.647/09 was Rs.2,78,197/-. Following almost the same rate as adopted in the above case, the claimant/appellant is entitled to get a further amount of Rs.63,000/- as enhanced compensation for the value of buildings and structures. 7. The value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the buildings and structures situated in the property in LAA No.972/09 was at Rs.4,12,660/-. Following almost the same rate, the claimant/appellant is entitled to get a further amount of Rs.93,000/- for the value of buildings and structures. 8. The value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the buildings and structures situated in the property mentioned in LAA No.673/09 was at Rs.4,15,442/-. Following the same rate, the claimant/appellant is entitled to get a further amount of Rs.94,000/- for the value of buildings and structures. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that compensation was not given to the claimants for the bits of land, LAA 604/09 etc. 5 used by them as a private road. According to the learned counsel, the entire property was acquired including the private road and so, the respondent was not justified in denying compensation for the land used for the road. This contention is opposed by the Government Pleader contending that the compensation was given for the land actually acquired. According to the Government Pleader, the area covered by the road has not been acquired at all and that was why compensation was not given. The records showing the land proposed to be acquired and the land actually acquired by the respondent and also the plan and other materials are not available before this court. Since the respondents assert that the area covered by the road has not been acquired at all, it is difficult to hold that the claimants are to be given compensation for the land which according to the respondents has not been acquired or taken possession at all. The owners of that portion of the land covered by the road can redress their grievance by moving the appropriate civil court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that the title deeds of the properties were obtained by the respondents and were not returned to the parties evidently because the entire land was acquired and taken possession by the respondents. The LAA 604/09 etc. 6 respondents would still assert that the area covered by the road was not acquired. If the entire land has not been acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer has to return the title deeds to the respective claimants after making necessary endorsements on their title deeds as to the extent of land acquired from each of the parties. If the claimants have a case that over and above the extent of land actually acquired (in respect of which compensation was awarded), the road portion was also taken possession by the respondents, the claimants can seek their remedy through the civil court. 10. In the result, all these appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellants are directed to suffer their respective costs in these appeals. The appellants are also entitled for the statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23 (1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd LAA 604/09 etc. 7 LAA 604/09 etc. 8