IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No.1362 of 2007(A) --------------------------------- LAR.47/96 OF ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------ MAYADEVI,W/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, MANGALATHU PUTHEN VEEDU,KOTHAPURAM,WEST KALLADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1362 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal and it appears to us that there is an element of genuineness in the grievance voiced by her. The acquisition was for the purpose of doubling of Kollam - Ernakulam Railway Line. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 04/05/91. The properties were in West Kallada village near Kollam. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the properties which were acquired as several categories. Different portions of the properties of the appellant/claimant were included in category No.1, category No.4 and category No.7. For properties in category No.1, the Land Acquisition L. A. A. No.1362 of 2007 -2- Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6,951/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment re-fixed the value of that property at Rs.12,359/- per Are. This was done on the basis of Ext.A1 sale deed which was found to be a relevant sale deed in respect of comparable property. The learned Sub Judge did not become inclined to grant any enhancement in respect of the portions of the acquired property falling within categories 4 and 7. This was on the reason that no document comparable to properties in those categories was produced by the appellant/claimant. According to us, the value of different categories of properties situated in one local area will bear some co-relation to each other. In other words, there must be some co-relation between the L. A. A. No.1362 of 2007 -3- value of properties in category 1 and properties in category 4 and 7. 2. On going through the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, we find that the value awarded by him is 56% of the value awarded to category 1 in respect of properties in category 4 and 14.38% of the value awarded to category 1 in respect of properties in categories 7. We do not think that it is a correct percentage which has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award. On our assessment of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the value of the acquired properties in category 7 should be 12.5% of the properties in category 1 and the value of the properties in category 4 should be 50% of the properties in category 1. Accordingly, we L. A. A. No.1362 of 2007 -4- allow this appeal to the extent of re-fixing the value of the properties in category 4 and category 7 for which no enhancement was granted by the Reference Court. The enhancement granted in respect of category 1 properties will stand confirmed. The value of the properties which were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category No.4 are re-fixed at Rs.6,179/- per Are. Similarly, the properties which are included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category 7 is re-fixed at Rs.1,548/- per Are. 3. It is needless to mention that the appellant 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 she becomes eligible by virtue L. A. A. No.1362 of 2007 -5- of the re-fixation of land value done under this judgment. 4. Appeal will stand allowed to the above extent, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-