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 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 89 of 2001(B) & C.O. NO. 9/08 ------------------------- LAR.28/1987 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS 1 TO 10 AND ADDITIONAL CLAIMANTS 11 TO 36 AND 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. THOMAS JOSE, MANACKKALARIYIL THODUPUZHA. 2. M.V.MATHEW S/O VARGHESE, MULACKAL, THODUPUZHA. 3. T.K.ABDULKHADAR S/O KHANI RAWTHER, THOTTIYIL, THODUPUZHA'. 4. RAMAN PILLAI, KRISHNA PILLAI, THACHUKUZHIYIL, THODUPUZHA. 5. PADMANABHA PILLAI, SANKARA PILLAI, DO. DO. (DIED) 6. SUBHADRA BHAI W/O VITTALAPAI, KUNNATHUMADATHIL, OLAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA. 7. THOMAS ALEY, KOTHAIKUNNEL, THODUPUZHA (DIED) 8. JOSEPH STEPHEN, PULIMOOTTIL, THODUPUZHA (DIED) 9. MATHEW JOSEPH, MANJANATTU, THODUPUZHA. 10. MATHEW PAUL (DIED) KARIMKUNNAM. ADDL.11. PARUKUTTY AMMA W/O KRISHNA PILLAI, URUMPANAL HOUSE, KOLANI P.O., TODUPUZHA. 12. LAKSHMI AMMA W/O NARAYANA PILLAI, PULLAPPILLIL, KEERIKODE KARA, KARIKODE, VILLAGE. 13. NARAYANA PILLAI H/O LAKSHMI AMMA AGED 72 YEARS PULLAPPILLIL KEERIKODE KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE. 14. LEELA, AGED 28 YEARS D/O LAKSHMI AMMA DO. DO. 15. SANTHA, AGED 36 YEARS D/O LAKSHMI AMMA,DO. DO. 16. AMBIKAKUMARI, AGED 31 YEARS D/O LAKSHMI AMMA, DO. DO. 17. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, AGED 29 YEARS S/O LAKSHMI AMMA, DO. DO. 18. LATHIKAKUMARI, AGED 26 YEARS D/O LAKSHMI AMMA,DO. DO. 19. JAYASREE, AGED 22 YEARS D/O LAKSHMI AMMA,DO. DO. DO. 20. ANITHAKUMARI, AGED 19 YEARS D/O LAKSHMI AMMA, DO. DO. 21. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 17 YEARS S/O LAKSMI AMMA, DO. DO. 22. K.T.JOHN, KOTHAIKUNNEL, KALLARKUTTY, KATHIPPARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 23. K.T.JOSEPH, KOTHAIKUNNEL, THODUPUZHA. 24. MATHAI, KOTHAIKUNNEL (PULIYANAPPARAMBIL) THODUPUZHA. 25. ALEYKUTTY W/O MATHEW, KUNNANNAL, PERIYARPALAM, IDUKKY VILLAGE. 26. ANNAKUTTY W/O ABRAHAM, MANTHARAYIL, KATTAPPANA, SOCIETY PADI, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 27. CHINNAMMA W/O MATHEW, UPPUKUNNEL, KUDAYATHOOR KARA, VELLIYAMATTOM VILLAGE. 28. K.T.DEVASSIA, KOTHAIKUNNEL, THODUPUZHA. 29. P.S.THOMAS, PULIMOOTTIL, THODUPUZHA. 30. LUKE STEPHEN, PULIMOOTTIL, THODUPUZHA. 31. JOYIS P.STEPHEN, PULIMOOTTIL, THODUPUZHA. 32. SUJA ABRAHAM, ARACKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. 33. SUDHA ABRAHAM, THATCHEL HOUSE, NIDOOR. 34. LILLY W/O LATE PAUL, AGED 44 YEARS, MOONJANATTU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, MUTHALAKKODAM PO., THODUPUZHA. 35. ANEESH S/O PAUL, AGED 18 YEARS, MOONJANATTU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, MUTHALAKODAM P.O. 36. AJEESH S/O PAUL, AGED 11 YEARS, MOONJANATTU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, MUTHALAKODAM PO., THODUPUZHA. 37. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN FOR R37 SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R9,34TO36 SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY FOR R6 SRI.K.S.BABU FOR R1&3 SMT.N.SUDHA FOR R1&3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, ALONG WITH C.O. 9/08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 89 of 2001 & Cross Objection No. 9 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This appeal is preferred by the requisitioning authority Thodupuzha Municipality and the memorandum of cross objection is filed by claimant Nos. 1 and 3 who are respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in the appeal. The properties under acquisition were situated in Thodupuzha Village and the purpose of the acquisition was construction of Municipal Bus Stand Shopping Complex. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 20-9-1981. The land acquisition officer categorised the lands under acquisition into four categories. Included in category-A were properties having frontage of the State Highway and lying at a level with the State Highway. For these properties he awarded LAA. 89/01 - 2 - land value at the rate of Rs.5211/- per cent. Included in category-B were properties lying by the side of the State Highway at a higher level than the State Highway. For these properties, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4777/- per cent. Included in category -C were properties lying by the side of Kothaikunnu Road. For these properties, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4560/- per cent. Included in category – D were properties without frontage of road and for these properties, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4342/- per cent. The reference court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties particularly, Ext.A8 judgment in an earlier acquisition in the same village for the purpose of construction of bus stand re-fixed the value of the properties under acquisition. For properties which were included by the LAO in category – A the value was re-fixed at 80% over what was awarded by the LAO. Similarly, for properties in category B, C and D the values were re-fixed LAA. 89/01 - 3 - at 65%, 67% and 50% respectively over what was awarded by the LA Officer. In the appeal preferred by the requisition authority it is contended that the enhancement is excessive. The memorandum of cross objection is for enhancement in value of structures and also claim for further enhancement in land value. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned counsel for the appellant Municipality and those of Sri. K.K.Chandran Pillai, Sri.Shaji P. Chaly, Sri.K.S.Babu, Advocates appearing for the various claimants, especially Smt. N. Sudha, learned counsel for the cross objectors. While Mr.Gopalakrishna Kurup argued that the reasoning adopted by the learned Sub Judge is not sound and that the enhancement granted in land value is excessive, Smt.Sudha submitted that the enhancement granted is inadequate. She submitted in particular, that the court below was in error in not awarding any enhancement LAA. 89/01 - 4 - towards the value of the structures which existed on the property belonging to them consisting of three buildings and a cow shed for which the LA Officer awarded a total amount of Rs.47,399/-. According to her, even adopting the principle that valuation of buildings as per PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition there was justification for granting enhancement of at least 30% over what was awarded. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the Municipality is right when he submits that the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge for fixing the market value is not very sound. But we in this appeal are called upon to decide whether the rates ultimately fixed by the learned Sub Judge can be said to be excessive. After all, Ext.A8 was in respect of lands in same village and the acquisition under Ext.A8 was also for a LAA. 89/01 - 5 - statutory corporation. We notice the judgment of this court in State of Kerala v. Jose Simon, 2009(1) KLT 760 which pertains to acquisition of land in Thodupuzha Village though pursuant to a notification of some 19 years subsequent to. We notice various other judgments of this court pertaining to acquisition of land within the area of Thodupuzha Municipality. Taking into account those judgments and the evidence which is actually available on record in this case we are of the view that the rates fixed under the impugned judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge as value of the lands in the various categories under acquisition is more or less equal to the market value of the properties at relevant time. We don't find any reason for interfering with the fixation of market value under the impugned judgment. As for the grievance of the cross objectors, in view of our finding that the value fixed under the impugned judgment is more or less equal to the market value of the land at the LAA. 89/01 - 6 - relevant time, we don't find any justification for granting further increase in the value. At the same time, we notice some genuineness in the grievance of the cross objectors that the court below should have awarded some enhancement towards value of structures taking into account the reality that construction of buildings in conformity with the PWD schedule of rate is not a pragmatic proposition. Taking that aspect of the matter into account, we are of the view that the cross objectors should be awarded atleast Rs.10,000/- more towards additional compensation for the buildings which existed on their property. 4. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal will stand dismissed and the cross objections will stand allowed to the extent of awarding further amount of Rs.10,000/- to the cross objectors over and above what is awarded by the court below. It is made clear that since the LAA. 89/01 - 7 - award of the L.A. Officer is passed subsequent to 30-4- 1982, the claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is clarified that the solatium component of the compensation will also carry interest under Section 28. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/- LAA. 89/01 - 8 - PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. LAA. NO. 89 0f 2001 JUDGMENT 15th December, 2009