IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 LA.App..No. 676 of 2001(D) -------------------------- LAR.177/1997 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------- KURIAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/OI. ABRAHAM, MAZHAVNACHERI PARAMBATH ERALIL, PERUMPADAM, N. PASRUR. BY ADV. SRI. C.S. AJITH PRAKASH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 676 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2001 in L.A.R. No.177 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, N. Parur. The claimant is the appellant. 2. An extent of 13.70 Ares of land belonging to the claimant was acquired for the construction of NH 17, North Parur. Section 4(1) notification was published on 22.12.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.22,494/- per Are. The reference court refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.35,990/- per Are as against a claim of Rs.50,000/- per cent. The claimant submitted that the acquired land is lying within Parur Municipality and facing tarred motorable road on both sides. It is further submitted that the land value awarded by the reference court is too low. The claimant has a further case that due to the acquisition, 3.9 cents of land which form part of the acquired land has become unfit for any purpose and therefore the claimant is entitled to L.A.A.NO.676/2001 2 compensation for injurious affection. The court below relied on Ext.A2, certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R. No.150 of 1997. Ext.A2 shows that 60% enhancement was granted in that case. In the light of Ext.A2, the reference court refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.35,990/- per Are. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that Ext.A3 sale deed which relates to land similarly situated as the acquired land was not relied on by the court below though the assignor of the land covered by Ext.A3 was examined as AW.3 and he had tendered evidence stating that the acquired land is having more importance than the land covered by Ext.A3. Counsel also submitted that Ext.A4 sale deed, though produced before the court, was not even adverted to by the reference court for the purpose of taking a decision as to what exactly was fair and just land value. Another contention raised by the claimant is that Ext.A1 commission report and Ext.A1(a) sketch filed in O.S.No.748 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, North Parur would show that the value of the compound wall and septic tank after depreciation was assessed at Rs.35,580/-. The reference court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Dr. Gurmakh Ram Madan v. Bhagwan Das, 1988(6) JTSC 169 and held that Exts.A1 and A1(a) are not admissible in evidence and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. The certified copies of Exts.A1 and L.A.A.NO.676/2001 3 A1(a) were not acted upon for the reason that the originals were not produced. In this connection, it may be noted that the originals of Exts.A1 and A1(a) were produced before the civil court in the said suit. Therefore, the only possibility was to produce certified copies of the same. The reason for not producing the originals is self explanatory. Therefore, the finding of the court below that the claimant is not entitled to enhancement for the structural value cannot stand. 4. The next contention is regarding the claim for compensation for injurious affection in respect of the unacquired portion of 3.9 cents. In the light of the observations made above, the claim for injurious affection also has to be reconsidered. In the decision reported in Yamuna v. Special Tahsildar, 2007(3) K.L.T. 581, it was held that under the amended Act, the claimant is entitled to claim land value before the reference court in excess of what he had claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer and that the court is bound to independently investigate the claim based on the material on record. The claimant also contended before us that he is entitled to interest on solatium. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, 2006(8) SCC 457 that the claimant is entitled to claim interest on solatium with effect from 19.9.2001. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the L.A.A.NO.676/2001 4 matter requires reconsideration by the reference court. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the reference court for denovo consideration. The case shall be decided within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any. The appellant is entitled to refund of court fee. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ L.A.A.NO.676/2001 5 KURAIN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A. .NO676/2001 JUDGMENT 18th JANUARY, 2008