IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2007 / 26TH ASWINA 1929 LA.App..No. 1296 of 2000(D) --------------------------- LAR NO.117/1997 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. ........ APPELLANTS:CLAIMANTS 1 TO 6 & 8 ----------- 1. HAVVA UMMA, VIRUPPAMVELIL, VANDANAM, NOW RESIDING AT AFSAL MANZIL, BACK OF LEAGUE HOUSE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THANKAMMA, DO. DO. 3. SURYA, SEENA MANZIL, BEACH WARD, BAZAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 4. H.SUHARA BEEVI, AFSAL MANZIL, ALAPPUZHA. 5. KHURSHIL BEEVI, DO. DO. 6. MUHAMMED IQBAL, DO. DO. 7. MUMTAZ, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT & 7TH CLAIMANT ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPZUA. 2. HABBEBA, AFSAL MANZIL, BACK OF LEAGUE HOUSE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.V.MANOJKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI MARTIN D. ALUMBARA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2007 ALONG WITH LAA 205/2000, THE COURT ON 18/10/2007 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.1296 & 205 of 2000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated: October 18, 2007 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. LAA No.1296/2000 arises from LAR No.117/1997 and LA.A.No.205/2000 arises from LAR No.69/1997 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Alappuzha. The claimants in both the LARs. are the appellants in these appeals. 2. The extent acquired in LAR No.117/97 is 52.61 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.50/8-1 of Punnapra village along with the building thereon. The acquisition was made for the development of T.D.Medical College, Alappuzha. The notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is dated 6.11.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.9593/-per Are. 3. The extent acquired in LAR No.69/1997 is 14.46 Ares of land in Sy.No.78/3-A2 of Punnapra village, with the building and other structures thereon for the same purpose . Sec.4(1) notification is dated 6.11.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the same land value at the rate of Rs.9593/-per Are. For the building and structures the Land Acquisition Officer fixed Rs.85,870/-. For the building the amount fixed was Rs.77,697/-. 4. In LAR No.117/1997 the claimant produced Exts.A1 to A3 in support of the claim for compensation. The commission report in O.S.No.737/1997 of the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha was also produced as Ext.A4. 5. In LAR No.69/1997, Exts.A1 to A3 produced in the other LAR case are produced as Exts.A1 to A3. The commission report in O.S.No.615/1997 of the L.A.A.Nos.1296 & 205 of 2000 2 Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha is marked as Ex.A4. 6. The court below did not rely on Exts.A2 and A3 sale deeds for valid reasons. At the same time, the court below held that the land involved in Ext.A1 judgment in LAR No.27/1996 is similar and comparable to the lands acquired in both the cases. In Ext.A1 the land the value fixed is Rs.17,290/-per Are. On that basis, after observing that Ext.A1 land is having road frontage and that there is no such facility for the acquired lands, the court below fixed the land value for the acquired lands at Rs.17,000/-per Are. The fixation of land value on the basis of Ext.A1 is just and fair and we find that there is no ground made out by the claimants for interference. 7. The claimants in both the cases contended before us that the valuation of the building done by the commissioner is fair and reasonable and there is no reason to make further deduction from the amount determined by the commissioner. In fact, the court below rejected the valuation made by the P.W.D. Department and relied on the value fixed in Ext.A4 commission report produced by the claimant. The court below, after perusing the commission report in both the cases, observed that the commissioner had not ascertained the actual value of the materials prevailed in 1992 for fixing the building value. The actual age of the building also had not been clearly ascertained. The commissioner also did not deduct any amount towards depreciation. Hence the court below in LAR No.117/1997 applied 15% deduction in the value fixed in the commission report for fixing the value of the building. In LAR No.69/1997 the court below observed that the commissioner had not ascertained the exact quantity of materials and also had not disclosed the value of such materials as on 6.11.1993 and, L.A.A.Nos.1296 & 205 of 2000 3 therefore, the court thought it fit to deduct 20% of the value in Ext.A4 commission report for fixing the value of the building and other structures. The deduction of 15% and 20% in both the Land Acquisition References is for the reason that the commissioner in Ex.A4 report had not ascertained the exact quantity of materials and also not disclosed the value of such materials on the date of determination. We are of the view that the reason stated by the court below for making 15% and 20% deduction respectively is just and fair. We also notice the fact that the commissioner in Ext.A4 report had not chosen to deduct any amount towards depreciation in value. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decrees passed in the above two Land Acquisition References. Therefore, these appeals filed by the claimants are without any merit and are dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. Common judgment dated 18.10.2007 in LAA 1296/2000 and LAA 205/2000 is recalled vide order dated 14.1.2010 in R.P.393/08 respectively. L.A.A.Nos.1296 & 205 of 2000 4 Sd/-Registrar (Judicial) mt/-