IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 820 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.16/2005 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- GEORGE MANI, S/O.MANI, PALLIVETTILAYA VELLAYIPARAMBIL, KURAVILANGADU, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3-7-09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 820 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimant and the property situated in Kuravilangad Village was acquired for the purpose of Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 25-2- 2004. The property was having direct frontage of Vaikom – Pala Main Road was situated at a distance of just 50 metres from the junction where the above road meets the M.C.Road (Kuravilangad Town). The L.A. officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.17365/- per Are. Before the reference court the claimant relied on various documents and the commissioner's report. The court below did not become inclined to rely on any of the documents. Ultimately the data furnished by the commissioner in his report was taken into consideration. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on LAA. No. 820/07 -2- them and fixed land value at Rs.30,000/- per Are granting enhancement of 40% of what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. Being aggrieved this appeal is filed by the claimant. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.P.C.Haridas, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr. Haridas submitted that the court below was not at all justified in rejecting Ext.A2. Ext.A2, he submitted, has been rejected on the only reason that A2 property was having frontage of another road also. The other road frontage of which was enjoyed by A2 property was a mud road. The acquired property was having commercial potentialities. A2 revealed a bare land value of Rs.82,872/- per cent. A2 may be relied on giving some deduction for the additional facility of mud road frontage enjoyed by A2, so submitted by Mr.Haridas. Mr. Haridas also submitted that the court below should have granted some additional compensation for the LAA. No. 820/07 -3- improvements which existed on the property. 3. All the submissions of Mr.Haridas were resisted by Mr.Basant Balaji. He supported the impugned judgment stating that what has been granted is adequate compensation. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence, particularly A2 and C1 commission report. C1 commission report will show that in terms of nearness to Kuravilangad Town, the acquired property is nearer and A2 will show that the additional road facility enjoyed by A2 property was the facility of a mud road and not a regular road. A2 is a small plot involving 5.86 Ares. Taking into account the plus and minus facilities enjoyed by A2 property and the acquired property we hold that the correct market value of the property under acquisition at the relevant time was Rs.45,000- per Are. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the claim LAA. No. 820/07 -4- for compensation towards value of improvements on the reason that the evidence was not sufficient to award enhanced compensation on that count. We are in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge. 5. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal will stand allowed re-fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.45,000/-per Are. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the L.A. Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of our re-fixation of the market value in this appeal. The appeal is allowed as above, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ksv/-