IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 224 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.17/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL.CLAIMANTS D AND E : -------------------------------------- 1. RADHA LAKSHMI, D/O. KOOTTILTHARA KUNHI RAMAN EZHUTHASSAN, POST. KILLIMANGALAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. BABURAJ, S/O. KOOTTILTHARA KUNHI RAMAN EZHUTHASSAN, -DO- -DO- (ADDL.CLAIMANT B AND C EXPIRED. THEIR Lrs. ARE ADDL. CLAIMANTS D AND E ) BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT : RESPONDENT: -------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDHAR, (LA) GENERAL, THRISSUR. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI P.K.BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A. 224 Of 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 4, 2009 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal, the appellants who are claimants D and E in LAR 17 of 1998 of II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, challenged the judgment and decree of that court dated November 19, 2001 awarding a compensation of Rs.5000/- per cent, enhancing the compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer at the rate of Rs.7132/- per Are i.e. Rs.2886/- per cent. 2. The facts in brief are these: An extent of 0.1305 hectare of land in Sy.No.569/5B of Killimangalam village was acquired for the purpose of reconstruction of Killimangalam overbridge. Sec.4 (1) notification was published in gazette dated July 18, 1995. The land acquisition authority fixed the land value at Rs.7132/- per Are i.e. Rs.2886/- for one cent, based on document No.921/1995 of Chelakkara Sub Registry. The claimants claimed enhancement at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per cent. The Reference Court fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.5000/- per L.A.A. 224 Of 2004 2 cent. Dissatisfied with the said enhancement granted by the reference court, the claimants have come up in appeal. 3. Before the reference court, Aws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the claimants. RW.1 was examined and Ext.R1 was marked on the side of the respondent State. The report of the commissioner was marked as Ext.X1. 4. After the reference was taken on file by the reference court, the original claimant died. His legal heirs were impleaded as additional claimants B, C, D and E. Claimant B filed a statement before the reference court stating that he has no right over the property in view of the partition effected in their family. After the judgment and decree of the reference court claimants B and C also died. Claimants D and E are the legal heirs. This appeal is filed by claimants D and E. 5. The reference court rejected the basic document as there is no evidence to show that the lands covered by the basic sale deed and the acquired land are similarly situated. The rough sketch produced along with the award shows that the land L.A.A. 224 Of 2004 3 covered by the basic document is situated in a less important locality. The commissioner has reported in his report Ext.X1 that the acquired property is near Chelakkara center which is a business center. Therefore we are of the view that the learned Sub Judge is justified in rejecting the basic document. 6. The lower court did not accept the documents Exts.A1 and A2. By Exts.A1 and A2, 10 cents of land were sold for Rs.1,95,000/- each. The commissioner has reported that the lands covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are 3 kms. away from the acquired land and are situated in a more important locality, therefore, not comparable with the acquired plot. That being so, we feel that the lower court is right in not accepting Exts.A1 and A2. 7. The learned Sub Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the acquired land has road frontage and is situated near Chelakkara center, fixed the land value at Rs.5000/- per cent. PW.1 has testified that the acquired land has road frontage and that it is near Chelakkara center which is a business center. This is not challenged in cross-examination. Admittedly the L.A.A. 224 Of 2004 4 acquired property is near Chelakkara center which is a business center. The commissioner has reported in Ext.X1 that at present the market value of the land in that locality is about Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per cent. Taking into consideration the importance of the locality where the acquired land is situated and having regard to the fact that the acquired land had the potentiality for being used for commercial and residential purposes and as there was fair possibility of increase in its market value in the near future, and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the principles laid down in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 2008 SC 709), we feel that the market value of the land acquired as on the date of publication of sec.4 (1) notification i.e. during 1995 can be reasonably fixed at Rs.8000/- per cent. 8. The reference court awarded Rs.10,000/- towards injurious affection of the remaining 3 cents of land of the claimants on the Eastern side of the road. We are of the view that the said compensation awarded is reasonable. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The value of the land L.A.A. 224 Of 2004 5 acquired is fixed at Rs.8000/- per cent. The appellants are entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium and interest to the enhanced compensation. The enhanced compensation shall be disbursed to claimants D and E, the appellants. The claimants are entitled to proportionate costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/- L.A.A. 224 Of 2004 6 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------ L.A.A. 224 Of 2004 JUDGMENT ------------------------------ 4.6.2009