IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 2438 of 2008(D) --------------------------- LAR.107/2007 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- PARAMMAL USMAN, S/O.ABDULLA, PARAMMAL, ATHOLI, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. PIN-673 107 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOYILANDY. PIN-673 017. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 108. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 2438 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. His property in Atholi Village was acquired pursuant to a Section 4(1) notification published on 27-2-2004 for the purpose of widening of Kuniyilkadavu approach road. The land in question was garden land. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5798/- per cent. Before the reference court the evidence consisted mostly of oral evidence adduced by the parties, C-1 commission report and A1 document. A1 was a post notification document reflecting a land value of above Rs.28,000/- per cent. The commissioner under Ext. C-1 recommended for the award of Rs.29,000/- per cent. The Court below did not place full reliance on Ext.A1. But the court below found that the Government did not have a case that A1 was an artificial document. It was noticed that not LAA. No. 2438 of 2008 -2- even a suggestion was made by the Government that it is an artificial value that is shown in A1. But the Court below found that the Advocate Commissioner had not been taken to Ext.A1 property. Nevertheless, relying on the oral evidence adduced by the parties to a certain extent the court below re-fixed the market value at Rs.10,000/- per cent , thus granting an enhancement of about 72% over what was awarded by the LAO. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the reference court and Sri.Ramesan Nambisan, learned counsel for the appellant addressed us in detail on the basis of those grounds. He submitted that the court below went wrong in not relying completely on Ext.A1. He submitted further that the court below ought to have awarded compensation for injurious affection in respect of 2 ¼ cents of remainder land which became practically useless because of the acquisition. The LAA. No. 2438 of 2008 -3- learned counsel argued that the court below ought to have enhanced the compensation awarded for the compound wall which existed on the property. Atleast Rs.50,000/- should have been awarded towards value of the compound wall. 3. All the submissions of Mr.Ramesan Nambisan were very stiffly opposed by the Smt. R.Bindu, learned Govt. Pleader. She submitted that A1 was the only tangible item of evidence to support the appellant's claim for enhancement in land value. A1 was a post notification document which could not have been relied on. She also submitted that the claim for compensation for injurious affection is not supported by any legal evidence. She pointed out that the claimant had not ensured that the Advocate Commissioner inspects the remainder property and submits a sketch. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. It has been laid down by LAA. No. 2438 of 2008 -4- the Supreme Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. R.Jivanbhai Patel & Co., (2008 SAR (Civil) 894) that the reference court should be very slow in relying on post notification document. In this particular case, we find that the reference court actually relied on Ext.A1 to a certain extent and there is no appeal by the Government against such reliance placed by the reference court. We also feel that to a certain extent A1 document was relevant. At the same time, the claimant did not ask the commissioner to inspect the property and make a comparison of the same with A1 property. This was why the court below did not award the same value as shown in A1 document. But we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was a little miserly while fixing the market value. On a better assessment based on the evidence which came on record the market value of the land under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at Rs.12,500/- per cent. It is accordingly fixed. LAA. No. 2438 of 2008 -5- 5. We don't find way to accept the argument of Mr. Ramesan Nambisan that compensation for injurious affection should be given. Even the commission report does not support the claim for compensation for injurious affection. It is seen from the impugned judgment that no serious arguments were raised before that court on this point. 6. The commissioner's report is not of much assistance for determining the correct compensation payable for the compound wall and other buildings which existed on the property. But we find that it was a very meagre amount which was awarded by the awarding officer for the buildings and other structures existed in the property. It is agreed that valuation of buildings in accordance with PWD published schedule of rates is not a realistic proposition. In fact the PWD itself tenders its own work at rates higher than it's own published rates. Taking that aspect into account we LAA. No. 2438 of 2008 -6- feel that the appellant is entitled for an award of a further amount of Rs.10,000/- towards value of compound wall. We accordingly award so much amount to the appellant. Appeal is thus allowed re-fixing the land value at Rs.12,500/- per cent and awarding additional compensation towards value of compound wall at Rs.10,000/-. Needless to mention that on the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant becoming eligible by virtue of this judgment, will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1a), 23(2) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-