IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 1233 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.162/2008 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ---------------------------------- KOCHURANI PAUL, THOTTAKATHU HOUSE, KOTHADU, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, THE SPL; TAHSILDAR (LA), I C T T, VALLARPADAM, ELOOR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SMT. THUSHARA JAMES SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.T.K.MOHANAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 1233 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Surendra Mohan, J. This is a claimant's appeal challenging judgment dated 19-1-2009 of 3rd Addl. Sub Court, Ernakulam in LAR. No. 162 of 2008. 2. An extent of 3.89 Ares of wet land in Kadamakudy Village was acquired as per Section 4(1) Notification dated 12-1-2006 for the purpose of providing four lane road connectivity from Kalamassery to the Vallarpadam Container Terminal. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13451/- per Are as compensation. Being dissatisfied with the compensation, the appellant claimant sought a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the reference court as per the judgment appealed against has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.14,796/- per Are. LAA. 1233/09 -2- 3. According to Sri. Babu Cherukara who appears for the appellant claimant, the acquired property forms part of a compact plot having an extent of 2 acres with frontage of a PWD Road as well as a Panchayat Road and was located at a prominent junction called the Korampadam Junction. A portion of the property abutting the PWD Road had been acquired for construction of the Chittoor – Kothad Bridge as per Section 4(1) Notification dated 16-11-2002. In the said case, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded an amount of Rs.34,300/- per Are as compensation to the petitioner. On reference to the Civil Court, the same was enhanced to Rs.54,000/- per Are. Therefore, the counsel contended that the land value awarded by both the acquisition officer as well as the reference court were far below the actual market value prevailing at the relevant time. 4. Smt. Thushara James who appeared for the requisitioning authority contended that the land acquired LAA. 1233/09 -3- was only wet land located at a remote area where the land value was very low. The land value awarded for the property in the earlier acquisition represented the value of the land acquired in the said case and the same was not comparable to the land acquired in the present case. Counsel seriously disputed the contention of the counsel for the appellant-claimant that both the lands were part of the same property. It is pointed out that apart from the fact that both the properties belonged to the same person there is nothing on record to show that both the properties were part of the same plot, as contended. Therefore, she prayed that the compensation awarded by the reference court be confirmed. 4. We have heard the counsel on both sides and have considered the rival contentions anxiously. 5. It is true that Ext.A3 judgment relied on by the counsel for the appellant shows that the petitioner was also LAA. 1233/09 -4- one of the claimants in the reference that was the subject matter thereof. However, we don't have any materials to conclude that the property acquired was part of the same plot of land as contended. In fact, a reading of Ext.A3 gives an impression that the land that was the subject matter of the said reference was dry land. In the absence of any evidence to prove that both the properties were part of the same plot, the said claim of the appellant cannot be countenanced. At the same time, we notice that the reference court has only granted an enhancement of 10% which according to us, is grossly inadequate. 6. Considering the nature of the lands in the area of acquisition and the development that is taking place in the said area, we feel that an enhancement of at least 35% is necessary, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we enhance the land value by 35% and fix the total land value payable to the petitioner at LAA. 1233/09 -5- Rs.18,250/-. The petitioner-appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the result, this appeal is allowed enhancing the land value in respect of the acquired property to Rs.18,250/- per Are. The petitioner shall be entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on solatium. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ksv/-