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. 340 of 2010(D) -------------------------- LAR.8/1997 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- S.ASHARUFUDDIN, KADAYIL VEEDU, VALICODE, THEKKUMKARA MURI, NEDUMANGAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K. MOHANAN 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. 340 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Surendra Mohan, J. This appeal is filed challenging judgment dated 29-1- 1999 in LAR. No. 8 of 1997 of Sub Court, Nedumangad. The appellant is the claimant. 2. An extent of 4.82 Ares of dry land in Nedumangad Village was acquired for the construction of an Office-cum- Quarters Complex for the Irrigation Project as per Section 4 (1) Notification dated 29-11-1995. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.37,128/- per Are. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant claimant sought a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and accordingly the matter was referred to the Sub Court, Nedumangad. The case was numbered as LAR. No. 8 of 1997 and was tried. LAA. No. 340/10 -2- 3. On the side of the claimant, Exts. A1 to A4 and A4 (a) documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, Exts.R1 to R4 documents were marked. Ext.C1 commission report was marked as court exhibit. The claimant examined AWs. 1 to 3 as witnesses on his side while RW1 was examined on the side of the respondent. 4. On a consideration of the evidence on record the reference court came to the conclusion that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The Court found that the award in the present case was passed on the basis of the land value that existed in 1995 for the reason that, a basic document of the said year was relied upon. The court also noticed that as per Ext. A3 judgment relied upon by the claimant a higher land value had been awarded to similar lands. However, for the reason that no evidence has been adduced by the claimant to show that there was any enhancement in land value in the locality after the date of A3 judgment, the reference LAA. No. 340/10 -3- court awarded the very same land value that was awarded in Ext.A3 judgment. 5. According to Smt. M.Hemalatha who appears for the appellant, the court below has fallen into grave error in not taking note of the fact that there certainly would have been enhancement in land value during the period preceding the notification in the present case. According to the counsel, Nedumangad being a town, there was substantial increase in the land value after the date of Ext.A3 which has not been taken into account by the reference court. Therefore, the counsel requested for the grant of a proper increase in the land value that has been awarded by the reference court. 6. The learned Govt. Pleader Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan on the other hand, contended that in the absence of any evidence to show that there was any enhancement in land value during the relevant period, there was no justification for granting any enhancement. According to the learned Govt. LAA. No. 340/10 -4- Pleader, there was no evidence to show that the land in the present case enjoyed the same locational advantages as the land in Ext.A3. 7. We have heard the counsel on both sides at length. We have considered the rival contentions anxiously. 8. We take note of the fact that Nedumangad is an urban area and a town where developments are taking place at a fast pace. We also notice that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded only an amount of Rs.10,523/- per Are for the land that was acquired in Ext.A3 judgment. In the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a total amount of Rs.37,128/- per Are. Therefore, even on the showing of the Land Acquisition Officer himself, it is clear that there has been a substantial increase in land value during the intervening period. We further notice that the Section 4(1) Notification in Ext.A3 judgment is dated 16- 9-1993 while the Section 4(1) notification in the present case is dated 29-11-1995, after a gap of more than two LAA. No. 340/10 -5- years. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. R. Jivanbhai Patel & another, 2008 SAR (Civil) 894, Nedumangad being an urban area, 15% can without any doubt, be taken as the enhancement in land value during the intervening period between the two notifications. However, we refrain from awarding the full amount on the basis of the principles laid down in the decision referred to above. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is sufficient that the land value awarded by the reference court is enhanced from Rs.52,614/- per Are to Rs.65,000/- per Are. 9. We notice that this appeal was filed with a substantial period of delay which was condoned by order dated 20-5-2010 in CM. Appln. No. 606/10. As a condition for condonation of the delay, this court has ordered as follows: “iii) In the event of the appeal being allowed and the appellant becoming eligible for enhanced compensation by virtue of that judgment, such LAA. No. 340/10 -6- enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period of 3876 days condoned by this order.” In view of the above direction, it is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to interest only subject to the above condition. Apart from the enhancement in compensation, the petitioner will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 10. The petitioner-appellant also has a complaint that he has not been granted interest on solatium. It is made clear that the appellant shall be entitled to interest on solatium also. In the result, this appeal is allowed by enhancing and re-fixing the market value payable as compensation to the appellant claimant at Rs.65,000/- per Are. The appellant- claimant shall be entitled to interest on solatium. The appellant-claimant shall also be entitled to all the statutory LAA. No. 340/10 -7- benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the appellant- claimant shall not be entitled to claim interest for the period of 3876 days which has been disallowed by this Court, as stated above. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ksv/-