IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 456 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.233/1994 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. D. MANOHARAN, KAVINTEKKANNIMEL HOUSE, CHEPPADU MURI, CHEPPADU VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPILLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SULEKHA MANOHARAN, KAVINTEKKANNIMEL HOUSE, CHEPPADU MURI, CHEPPADU VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPILLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. N.T.P.C. KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.J.JOSEPH, SMT.M.V.LIGI. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.456 Of 2006 ---------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The claimant in L.A.R.No.233/1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara, is the appellant. The reference court partly allowed the claim. The claimants are allowed to realise enhanced land value at the rate of `.3,000/- per Are for 7.70 Ares of dry land. Statutory benefits are also awarded. The appeal is preferred challenging the quantum of compensation. 2. An extent of 7.70 Ares of dry land in survey No.16/7 owned by the claimants in Cheppad Village was acquired for the purpose of the N.T.P.C. Section 4(1) notification is dated 17.4.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded `.6,000/- per Are. 3. This case was jointly tried along with three other connected reference cases. The acquired property is categorised as dry land interior without road access. The claimants in the reference cases claimed that the dry land could fetch a market value at the rate of `.15,000/- to `.20,000/- or `.8,000/- per cent. According to the claimants, the acquired lands are at a ::2:: L.A.A.No.456/2006 distance between 100-150 metres west of Cheppad junction near National Highway and several public institutions are lying in the vicinity and therefore the acquired lands could fetch more value. Copy of the mahazar would show that the land is at about 200 metres west of the National Highway at a point of 20 metres south of Kanjoor temple. The learned Judge rightly observed that the claimants have not obtained any commission report for proving the distance from the National Highway nor did they successfully challenged the correctness of the mahazar. The learned Judge also observed that though the lands under acquisition are considerably away from the National Highway, the area is important and that several institutions are situated nearby the acquired lands. 4. In support of the claimants for enhanced compensation, claimants produced Exts.A1 to A3 documents. 5. Ext.A1 land is lying adjacent on the western side of National Highway. The advantages and disadvantages of Ext.A1 land was not brought out by either examining the vendor or vendee. The court also held that the vendee is a near relative of ::3:: L.A.A.No.456/2006 the vendor and the real purpose of execution of Ext.A1 is not proved. For these reasons the learned Judge held that Ext.A1 land is not similar and similarly situated and therefore cannot be acted upon. Exts.A2 and A3 are two judgments produced in two L.A.R cases in support of the claimant for enhanced compensation. The properties in those L.A.R cases are lying in a different village, namely, Chingoli Village. The claimants testified before the court that Ext.A2 land is about ¾ km. north of the land in the present case. As I said earlier, the land is lying in Cheppad Village whereas the lands referred in Exts.A2 and A3 are in Chingoli Village. Dry lands in Chingoli Village are acquired at the rate of `.14,700/- per Are and the court re-fixed the land value at `.32,000/-. Ext.A3 land is lying adjoining to National Highway and is close to Nangiarkulangara junction. Taking into account the fact that Ext.A3 land is lying in an important area, close to Nangiarkulangara junction, the reference court held that Ext.A3 land and the acquired lands have no comparison. Though the reference court concluded that the claimants in the reference cases failed to adduce evidence in support of their claim for ::4:: L.A.A.No.456/2006 enhanced compensation, the court granted enhancement taking into account the potential value and importance of the property. The enhancement was granted after taking into account the lie and location of the land, its prospects and potentialities, advantages and disadvantages etc. Since the property is not by the side of any road, the court estimated the land value at `.9,000/- per Are as on the date of notification. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the land involved in Ext.A2 L.A.R case was acquired at `.6,000/- per are and the court has re-fixed the land value at `.18,000/- per Are. The learned Judge held that Ext.A2 property is about ¾ km. north of the land in the present case. The reference court also found that the acquired land and Ext.A2 lands are lying in different Villages, therefore, no reliance was placed on Ext.A2 judgment. It is a fact that land referred in Ext.A2 relates to the acquisition of the land for the same purpose. Though the property is lying in a different village, namely, Chingoli Village, was acquired at the rate of `.6,000/- and the reference court re- fixed the land value at `.18,000/-. Though there is no materials ::5:: L.A.A.No.456/2006 in this case for comparing Ext.A2 land with the acquired land, the fact that `.6,000/- per Are was enhanced to `.18,000/- should have been taken into account for granting a reasonable enhancement for the acquired land. It has come out in evidence that the land referred in Ext.A2 is lying at about ¾ km. north of the land in L.A.R.No.233/1994. The claimant has not taken any steps to compare the acquired land in the present case with the property under acquisition in Ext.A2 case. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the land referred in Ext.A2 land and the acquired land are similar or similarly situated. At the same time the fact that the said land was also valued at the rate of `.6,000/- per Are assumes significance. Taking into consideration the land value fixed in Ext.A2, this Court is of the view that the reference court ought to have granted a reasonable enhancement for the acquired land, taking into consideration the lie, location, its prospects and potentialities. On a reasonable estimate, I re-fix the land value at the rate of `.12,000/- per Are granting an enhancement of `.3,000/- per Are. ::6:: L.A.A.No.456/2006 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree under challenge is modified. The appellants are entitled to enhancement of land value at the rate of `.3,000/- per Are in addition to the re-fixed value by the reference court. The appellants are entitled to eligible statutory benefits. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-