IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 319 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.19/2004 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- BIJUMON, S/O.NAGOOR MOIDEEN RAWTHER, KOTTAKOICKAL HOUSE, NEDUMON MURI, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR SRI.K.G.RENGANATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 319 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. The property under acquisition was in Enadimangalam Village. Acquisition was pursuant to notification dated 19-12-2003. The acquisition was for the purpose of establishment of food park for KINFRA, the second respondent. The total extent of the property was 3 acres 91.65 cents. The land acquisition officer included the property under acquisition in category – II, i.e., the property having frontage of estate road and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,400/0 per Are. For the improvements which existed on the property consisting mainly of rubber trees, the L.A.O. awarded compensation of Rs.61,200/-. The evidence before the reference court on the side of the appellant claimant consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, commission report C1, C2 mahazar and C3 sketch LAA. No. 319/07 - 2 - prepared by commissioner, apart from his own oral evidence as AW1. On the side of the respondents the same consisted of R1 group sketch, R2 basis document and testimony of RW1. The learned Sub Judge on evaluating the evidence would re-fix the land value at Rs.7,260/- per Are. Towards value of improvements, no additional compensation was awarded. In this appeal, the appellant has raised several grounds assailing what is described as the gross inadequacy of the compensation re-determined by the reference court. 2. We have heard the submissions Mr.V.N.Achutha Kurup, learned senior counsel for the appellant and those of Sri. G.S. Reghunath, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority. We have also heard the submissions of Smt. Latha T. Thankappan, Senior Govt. Pleader. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Achutha Kurup to the impugned judgment and also to the commissioner's report and the sketch prepared by the commissioner. Mr. Kurup submitted at the very outset that unlike the other properties which were LAA. No. 319/07 - 3 - included by the L.A. Officer in category – II, the property under acquisition in this case was enjoying frontage of estate road on three sides. The other properties had frontage of that road only on one side. He submitted that these properties were therefore eligible to be included in category – I. He submitted that the court below ought to have awarded additional compensation towards value of improvements accepting the commissioner's recommendations. All the submissions of Mr.Kurup were forcefully resisted by G.S. Reghunath who was supported in all his submissions by the learned Govt. Pleader. Mr. Reghunath drew our attention to our judgment in LAA. No. 876/07 and connected matters. He submitted that for the properties included in category – II, this Court has re-fixed the land value at Rs.8,800/- per Are only. According to him, there is no warrant for granting any amount at the rate of more than Rs.8,800/- per Are towards land value in this case. He however, agreed that there can be justification for LAA. No. 319/07 - 4 - granting nominal increase to the value of improvements as was done by this court in L.A.A. No. 876 of 2007 and connected cases. He pointed out that the property under acquisition in this case is a very large extent and hence the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in L.A.O. & Sub Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal (AIR 1997 SC 2552), GafaR & Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority & another (2007(7) SCC 614 and State of J & K v. Mohammad Mateen Wani (AIR 1998 SC 2470) will have to be followed and a deduction will have to be made for the largeness of the extent. 3. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. It has been found by the learned Subordinate Judge that the property under acquisition in this case was enjoying frontage of estate road on three sides. We are of the view that it was not proper to have treated this property on a par with other properties included by the L.A.O. in category – II. According to us, the LAA. No. 319/07 - 5 - market value of the land under acquisition in this case should be more than that of the properties included in category – II. In the judgment in LAA. 876 of 2007 and connected matters we have re-fixed the market value of the land in category – I at Rs.11,000/- per Are. But we notice that the property in this case is large extent and hence applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in L.A.O. & Sub Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal (AIR 1997 SC 2552), GafaR & Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority & another (2007(7) SCC 614 and State of J & K v. Mohammad Mateen Wani (AIR 1998 SC 2470) we re-fix the land value in this case at Rs.10,000/- per Are. We have awarded increase towards value of improvements in all cases where the reference court has not granted any increase towards value of improvements by our common judgment in LAA. No. 876 of 2007 and connected matters. Following the view that we have taken in that case we award a further amount of Rs.19,000/- over and above LAA. No. 319/07 - 6 - the sum of Rs.61,200/- awarded by the reference court to the appellant in this case towards value of improvements. We make it clear that a total amount of Rs.80,200/- is awarded to the appellant by virtue of the judgment of the reference court and by virtue of this judgment. Appeal stands allowed as above. No costs. On the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible will be entitled to all statutory benefits otherwise admissible under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the L.A. Act. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-