IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 LA.App..No. 622 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.23/2003 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT: -------------------- K.M. MOHAMMEDALI, S/O. MOHAMMED, KUNNAPPILLIL, VATTAKUDY, VARAPETTY,KOTHAMANGALAM. REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,K.M.ABDULKHADIR, S/O.LATE K.K.MUHAMMAD, AGED 54 YEARS, KUNAPPILLIL HOUSE, VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANTALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 622 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the land value fixed by the reference court, Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, in L.A.R. No.23 of 2003. Acquisition is for Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs.14,259/- per Are. The total extent involved is 6.45 Ares. The appellant claimed Rs.50,000/- per cent. The reference court placed reliance on Exts.A2 and A3. Ext.A2 is the judgment in L.A.R. Nos. 63 and 136 of 2003 and Ext.A3 is the judgment in L.A.R. No. 124 of 2003. It is seen from the above judgments that proportionate land value in those cases has been awarded in this case also, as submitted by the learned Government Pleader. In all the cases relating to acquisition for Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project, this Court has sustained the enhancement of land value to the tune of 60% of the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to go into any further details on the merits of L.A.A.NO.622/2006 2 the case. What is given to the appellant is only an enhancement of 34.5 %. Accordingly, as far as land value is concerned, we hold that the appellant also shall be entitled to an enhancement to the tune of 60% over and above the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which would come to Rs.8,555/-. The appellant has already been granted Rs.4,928/-. Therefore, the appellant shall be entitled to a further enhancement to the tune of Rs.4,627/- per Are along with statutory benefits as well. 2. Another claim is compensation for the construction of the compound wall. In the evidence tendered by the appellant as AW.1, the demand is for Rs.50,000/-. But in the claim statement, the claim is only for Rs.10,000/-. The said claim has been declined by the reference court on the ground that there is no evidence in that regard in the report of the Advocate Commissioner. But the undisputed factual position is that the canal has been constructed cutting across the property of the appellant. Therefore, we find that the claim as made in the statement before the reference court is just and proper. We hold that the appellant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for the compound wall. The appeal is allowed to the above extent of fixing land value at L.A.A.NO.622/2006 3 Rs.8,555/- per Are with all eligible statutory benefits and compensation for structure to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The amounts already received shall be duly adjusted. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ L.A.A.NO.622/2006 4 KURAIN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A. .NO622/2006 JUDGMENT 28TH FEBRUARY, 2008