IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 833 of 2005() ------------------------- LAR.160/2000 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): REQUISITIONING AUTHORITY: --------------------------------------- THE AREA MARKETING MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED DR. SALIM ALI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.PRIYA MAHESH RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND STATES: ----------------------------------- 1. GOPINATHA MENON, KALLARA HOUSE, EROOR - REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NANDAKUMARA MENON. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL ERNAKULAM-30. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1 SMT.CHANJANA ELSA PHILIP FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T THANKAPPAN, FOR R2 ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- L.A.Appeal No.833 of 2005 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The Requisitioning Authority is in appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Nadama village and the property situated very near to Mathoor junction on the Eroor-Thripunithura main road. Pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 15.2.1997, the L.A.Officer included the property in category-1 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,22,000/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned judgment re-fixed the value of land at Rs.1,90,000/- per Are. For the two structures which existed on the property under acquisition, the L.A.Officer awarded an amount of Rs.96,522/-. The reference court, relying on Ext.A5 commission report and the oral evidence of AW3-the engineer who assisted the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the civil court, would re-fix the value of the building and other structures at Rs.2,01,821/-. LAA No.833/2005 2 2. Smt.Thushara James, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for the other properties under acquisition which were also included in category-1, the L.A.Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,22,000/- per Are. The reference court re-fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.1,78,600/- only. There was no justification for awarding higher amounts for the property under acquisition. Even though the submission of the learned counsel is attractive, we notice that the claimant in this case had a contention that the property involved in this case alone had direct frontage of the main road. More over, we notice that this property was in close proximity to Mathoor junction. According to us, those two advantages will certainly justify award of slightly higher amount of Rs.1,90,000/- per Are to the land under acquisition. Hence, we approve the award of land value at the rate of Rs.1,90,000/- per Are by the reference court. 3. It was relying on Ext.A5 report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed not by the land acquisition court, but by a civil court in a civil suit LAA No.833/2005 3 filed by the claimant, that the court below re-fixed the value of the building at Rs.2,01,821/-. This is what the court says about the value recommended by AW3. “It is stated by AW3 that he has assessed the value as per the data available from the PW3. It goes without saying that even PWD rates are much below the market rate. However, I am of the view that Ext.A5(a) valuation statement can be safely accepted for fixing the value of the buildings situating in the property in LAR No.160/2000.” 4. The learned subordinate judge omitted to notice that the PWD schedule of rates was adopted by AW3 in 1999, while the acquisition was in 1997. The learned subordinate judge, in our opinion, should have noticed that the detailed valuation statement prepared by the engineers attached to the acquiring authority, namely, the serving engineers of the PWD, were not made available so as to enable the court or AW3 to make a comparison. The action of the learned subordinate judge in adopting Ext.A5(a) valuation statement in full cannot be approved. At the same time, we notice that the LAA No.833/2005 4 structures consisted of a double storeyed building and a tiled building and the compensation awarded by the L.A.Officer was certainly inadequate. 5. On a better assessment of the evidence on record, we re-fix the value of the buildings which existed on the property under acquisition at Rs.1,76,821/-. In modification of the impugned judgment, we order that the total compensation payable to the appellant for the buildings which existed on the property will be only Rs.1,76,821/- as against the compensation awarded under the impugned judgment. 6. Mr.Chandran Pillai, the learned counsel for the respondents has a grievance that the respondent did not get full statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23 (1)(A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and according to him, there are mistakes in the impugned judgment. 7. We make it clear that on the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant is correctly entitled by virtue of the award of the L.A.Officer, the judgment of the reference court and the present judgment, he will be LAA No.833/2005 5 entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal allowed to the above extent, but without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/