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 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 1094 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.6/1997 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- S.MOLLY, NAKKARA VEEDU, POOVACHAL P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.B.V.SUNIL KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHASILDAR LA.PWD (SC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 1094 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. The acquisition was of property in Vithura Village. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of saddle dam. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 20-9-1993. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6607/- per Are. Before the reference court the claimant produced Exts.A1 and A2. A2 was a post notification document and hence could not have been relied on. As for Ext.A1 it was submitted on behalf of the claimant before the reference court itself that A1 need not be considered. A commissioner who conducted local inspection reported that the property was at Vithura Junction. He also reported that the property was very superior to the land covered by the basis document. But strangely he did not make any LAA. No. 1094/09 - 2 - suggestions or recommendations as to the market value of the property. Ultimately, the learned Subordinate Judge on guess work would re-fix the market value of the acquired property at Rs.8075/- per Are. 2. Having made a reappraisal of the evidence and having considered the submissions addressed before us by Smt. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Basant Balaji, learned senior Govt. Pleader we feel that on a better guess based on the available evidence the market value can be re-fixed at Rs.8250/- per Are. Accordingly, we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.8250/- per Are. 3. Another grievance raised by the appellant is that the learned Subordinate Judge did not award proper compensation for improvements which existed on the property. The Advocate Commissioner recommended for award of Rs.57,750/- as against the original award of LAA. No. 1094/09 - 3 - Rs.22,500/-. The court below awarded Rs.19,250/- more towards value of improvements. We find that the learned Subordinate Judge has granted reasonable additional compensation towards value of improvements. The learned Subordinate Judge does not give any specific reason as to why the recommendation of the commissioner is not accepted in full. So it is clear that the court was not very much impressed by the evidence of the Commissioner. The commissioner was examined as AW2. We notice that the award of the learned Subordinate Judge is less than 30% of what was originally granted by the L.A.O. 4. Heard both sides. We feel that on a better appreciation of the evidence including the commissioner's report the appellant will be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- more over and above what was awarded by the reference court. We award Rs.5000/- more towards value of improvements over and above the enhanced compensation LAA. No. 1094/09 - 4 - awarded by the LAO. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation inclusive of solatium to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-