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 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 641 of 2006(A) ------------------------------ LAR.47/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS: ------------------------------- 1. PEEDIKA VALAPPIL BALAN, KALATHUVAYAL P.O., ANCHAMPEEDIKA. 2. VELLUVALAPPIL CHEELYAYIKUTTY, W/O. BALAN, KALATHUVAYAL P.O., ANCHAMPEEDIKA. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A., RAILWAY, KANNUR. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.641 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants are in appeal. The acquisition was for the purpose of doubling of railway track. The property was in Kalliasseri village of Kannur district. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per cent against a claim of Rs.50,000/- per cent by the appellants. It was Ext.A3 judgment which was put in evidence by the claimant in support of his claim for enhanced land value. Ext.A3 revealed a centage value of Rs.61,000/-. Ext.A3 was a document of 1996 executed three years prior to the relevant section 4(1) notification. Ext.A3 was in favour L. A. A. No.641 of 2006 -2- of a local co-operative bank. The court below did not become inclined to award the value revealed by Ext.A3 on the reason that Ext.A3 is situated in an important area of the town. Nevertheless, the court below noticed that the distance between the acquired property and Ext.A3 property was not much and to a certain extent relying on Ext.A3 itself, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent. 2. Having regard to the submissions addressed before us by Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal, the learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Sumangala, the learned Government Pleader and having gone through the impugned judgment and having made a quick re- appraisal of the evidence particularly Ext.A3, we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was a little miserly L. A. A. No.641 of 2006 -3- in the matter of fixing the land value. The distance between Ext.A3 property and the acquired property even according to the learned Subordinate Judge was not much. Though not in the important areas of the town, the acquired property was also enjoying commercial potentiality obviously because of the reason that the first claimant himself was conducting a restaurant in that property. In fact, when additions are made for the passage of time, the value of Ext.A3 property as on the date of notification will come to Rs.78,000/- per cent. We feel that the rate presently granted at Rs.20,000/- per cent is very low. On a better assessment based on the evidence on record, the market value of the lands under acquisition will have to be fixed at Rs.30,000/- per cent. Accordingly, in modification of the award of the L. A. A. No.641 of 2006 -4- Reference Court, we fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.30,000/- per cent. 3. It is in evidence that it was a two storied building which existed on the property under acquisition. The Advocate Commissioner's Report is not of much assistance in the matter of fixing the proper value of the building. But, we notice that the building was valued by the Land Acquisition Authority adopting the PWD schedule of rates. It is well known that construction of building in accordance with PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Even the PWD is tendering out its civil works at 25 to 40% above its own rates. Taking that aspect of the matter into account, we are of the view that at least Rs.20,000/- more should be awarded to the appellants towards value of the building. We award Rs.20,000/- L. A. A. No.641 of 2006 -5- more on that count. 4. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. It is needless to mention that the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-