IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 LA.App..No. 408 of 2002() ------------------------- LAR.296/1991 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/H CLAIMANT IN LAR NO.296/91. ---------------------------------------------------- MANAGING DIRECTOR, C.C. EDUCATION SOCIETY, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT SECRETARY, REV. SR.JUSTINE. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANT : --------------------------------------- 1. FR. VARGHESE CHATHAPARAMBIL (DIED), DIRECTOR, C.C. EDUCATION SOCIETY PATTANAKKADU, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA. 2. C.J. JOSEPH, CHATHAPARAMBIL, PATTANAKKADU, CHERTHALA. 3. C.J. CHACKO, CHATHAPARAMBIL, PATTANAKKADU, CHERTHALA. 4. FR. ANTONY CHATHAPARAMBIL, PUBLIC SCHOOL, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA. 5. C.J. MATHEW, CHATHAPARAMBIL, VADAYAR EAST, CHERTHALA. 6. ROSSA, W/O. VARKEY, CHERTHALA NORTH. 7. SR. STELLA MARY, ST. JOSEPH CONVENT, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA. 8. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A. KAS NO.1, THARIODE VILLAGE. 9. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH WAYANAD DIVISION, KALPETTA. (...2) LAA.408/02 2 10. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, KALPETTA. 11. THE DIRECTOR, C.C.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA (IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS ADDL.RESPONDENT 11 AS PER ORDER DT. 24.9.2009) 12. KSEB REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (IMPLEADED SUO MOTO AS ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.12 VIDE ORDER DT. 21.7.2011) GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 682 OF 2002 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.408 and 682 of 2002 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Having considered the submissions addressed by Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, senior counsel for appellant in these two appeals and also those of Sri.P.Santhalingam, learned senior counsel for the requisitioning authority as well as the learned Government Pleader Smt.Rose Michael, we are of the view that there is justification for enhancing the compensation for the building which existed on the properties involved in both these cases to a considerable extent. On a reappraisal of the evidence and keeping in mind the principle that the construction of building in accordance with Public Works Department published schedule of rates is not realistic we award to the appellant in LAA.682/02 a further amount of Rs.80,000/- as additional compensation for building No.1 and a further amount of Rs.50,000/- as additional compensation for building No.2. Applying the same principle we award to the appellant in LAA.408 & 682 of 2002 -2- LAA.408/2002 a further amount of Rs.75,000/- as additional building value. 2. Both appeals involve appellant's claim for enhanced land value also. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for requisitioning authority Sri. Santhalingam, the evidence on record is not sufficient to justify any enhancement in land value. Mr.Sugunapalan, learned senior counsel for appellant requested that the issue of determining the land value may be remitted back. This request was opposed by Mr. Sugunapalan for the reason that passing an order of remand in this case where no evidence was adduced by the claimants before the trial court will result in prejudice to the requisitioning authority. Despite the opposition of Mr.Sugunapalan, we are inclined to remand the issue of refixing the market value of land involved in both these appeals incorporating conditions which, in our opinion, will protect the interests of the requisitioning authority to a considerable extent. 3. Result of the above discussions is as follows: Appellant in LAA.682/02 is awarded a total amount of Rs.1,30,000/- as additional compensation for the buildings. Similarly the appellant in LAA.408/02 is awarded a total amount of Rs.75,000/- as additional compensation for the buildings. The LAA.408 & 682 of 2002 -3- issue of determining the correct market value of land in both these appeals (LAR.Nos.142/1991 and 296/1991) is remanded. These L.A.As are remanded to the Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery. The learned Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery is directed to afford opportunities to the claimants to adduce further evidence on the question of land value. If the claimants adduce evidence then the requisitioning authority and Government will be permitted to adduce further evidence. The Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery will pass fresh award redetermining the land value. It is made clear that if under the revised award to be passed by the reference court the claimants become eligible for any enhancement in land value under the impugned judgment, such enhanced land value will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 21.3.2001 till 21.10.2011. There will be a further order that the appellant will forfeit 30% of the court fee on the appeal memoranda to the Government. Registry will refund only 70% of the court fee. Parties are directed to enter appearance before the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery on 15.11.2011. Registry is directed to transmit the lower court records to the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery. We make it clear that on the enhanced compensation, which is awarded to LAA.408 & 682 of 2002 -4- the appellant under this judgment, they will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and subject to what is already stated under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb