IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 69 of 2009() -------------------- OP(PMP).202/2005 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPLICANTS ------------------------------- 1. SULEKHA,W/O.LATE UMMER, VADAKKUPURATHU PUTHANPURAYIL,(IYYATH THEENATU),THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, H.M.T. COLONY P.O. KALAMASSERY. 2. JAFFER-BINU-UMMER S/O.LATE UMMER, MINOR,REP.BY HIS MOTHER SULEKHA,VADAKKUPURATHU PUTHANPURAYIL,(IYYATH THEENATU),THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE,H.M.T. COLONY P.O. KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, (DY.COLLECTOR) COCHIN CONIMBATORE KAROOR, PIPE LINE PROJECT, GOLDEN PLAZA ANNEXE, CHITTOOR ROAD,COCHIN -18 2. PETRONET CCK LTD, IRUMBANAM INSTILLATION OF BPCL,IRUMBANAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, S.RAMESH. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R2 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, ALONG WITH CRP 88, 90, 103, 104, 106 & 190 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. Nos. 69, 88, 90, 103, 104, 87, 106 and 190 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the revision petitions is only on the fixation of land value for the purpose of granting compensation under Section 10(4) of the Petroleum and Miners Pipeline (Acquisition of right of user in land) Act, 1962. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and standing counsel appearing for the second respondent-Corporation for which the land was acquired for laying pipeline. We have upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act through a separate judgment. Therefore compensation has to be considered with reference to statutory provisions. Section 10(1) of the Act provides for actual compensation for crop loss, inconvenience, etc and Section 10(4) provides for compensation at 10% of the market value of the land for the restrictions against construction, planting of trees, etc. as provided under Section 9(1). After hearing both sides and 2 after going through the award of the District Court we feel enhancement of compensation is called for though the land is marshy land. At the time of acquisition the land was within the municipal limits and is potentially important because all paddy lands are filled up and utilised for construction of commercial and residential buildings. Standing counsel for the Corporation submitted that Corporation has constructed a road on the acquired land with the consent of land owners and the road facility helps development of remaining land by land owners. He highlighted the incidental benefit received by the land owners who did not have road access to the property. However, counsel appearing for the land owners submitted that they would have jointly developed the land by filling it up and by constructing road and would have got substantial price for their land. Considering the nature of land, and it's location, and since the acquisition was in the year 1999, we refix the value of the land of the petitioners in these eight cases at Rs. 40,000/- per cent with direction to the corporation to give compensation in terms of the formula fixed by the District Court on this compensation amount and interest at 6% per annum in terms of the 3 award of the District Judge. We make it clear that higher percentage of land value fixed by the District Court as compensation on account of fragmentation and on account of virtual loss of almost all land by certain land owners should be given based on the enhanced land value fixed by us. CRPs are disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk