IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1255 of 2010() -------------------------- LAR.55/2005 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- P.UNNIYAN HAJI,S/O.ALAVI HAJI,RESIDING AT AL-AKBAR HOUSE,CHOORAKKODE DESOM, VALLAPPUZHA VIA,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.AJAKUMAR SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.T.HANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1255 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. His property in Kadakampally village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 13/2/2004 for the purpose of widening of Airport – palayam – Rajbhavan Road. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.1,46,819/- per Are. Evidence before the Reference Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, Exts.R1 to R4 and oral evidence of AW1. Significantly there was not even formal counter oral evidence on the side of the Government. The court below did not place full reliance on any of the judgments (Exts.A1 and A3) produced by the appellant. Ultimately what the court below did was to do guess work and grant to the appellant 32.5% increase taking into account passage of time between the date of Section 4(1) notification and Ext.R4 document. 2. Sri. V.Ajakumar, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the judgment in L.A.A. No.1973/2008 and LAA.No.1255/2010 2 submitted that for identical property acquired for the same purpose this court has approved the refixation of value at Rs.14 Lakhs per Are. The learned counsel requested that the above rate be granted to the appellant. This request is very stiffly opposed by the learned senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha T.Thankappan. She submitted that the above property was in Petta village and was situated much nearer to the important areas of the Thiruvananthapauram city than the property under acquisition in Kadakampally village. The learned senior Government Pleader however would fairly concede that on an average, the court has granted enhancement in the value of the properties in Kadakampally village acquired for the same purpose at 90 to 98% of what was awarded by the LAO. 3. We find that the property under acquisition in this case was situated almost on Chakka junction which is a very important junction on Palayam Airport road. We feel that in this particular case there is justification for awarding to the appellant cent per cent increase on the land value. Accordingly, we refix the value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 5,00,000/- per cent in modification of the impugned judgment. LAA.No.1255/2010 3 4. The appellant has another claim i.e. claim for enhanced value for the compound wall, gate and other structures which existed on the property. It is seen that the LAO awarded Rs.36470/- towards this head and the court below did not award any enhancement at all. Probably the appellant did not adduce any convincing evidence before the court below for his claim for enhanced the structure value. But, we find that the above valuation was arrived at by the LAO adopting the PWD schedule of rates. It is well known that the construction of buildings as per the PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Therefore, we are inclined to award to the appellant Rs.12,500/- more towards the value of structure. Accordingly, we award to the appellant a further amount of Rs.12,500/- towards further compensation for the structures. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the L.A.Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, while calculating interest under Section 28, the Registry should have due regard to the LAA.No.1255/2010 4 conditions imposed by this court in its order dated 7/1/2011 in C.M.Appln. 2019/2010. We notice that the court below has committed a mistake of awarding interest under Section 28 from the date of award itself. It is clarified that interest under Section 28 will become admissible only from the date of possession. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk