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 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 630 of 2005 (B) ------------------------------- LAR.68/2001 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/ADDL. SECOND RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS AND FIRST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DR. K.P. MATHEW, S/O. PAILY, SWANLY VEETTIL, KAREETHALM DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 2. SOPHY MATHEW, W/O. MATHEW, SWANLY VEETTIL, KAREETHALAM DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 3. GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.R. SREEDHARA VADHYAR, MANAGING PARTNER YESORAM CONSTRCTIONS COMPANY LTD., CONVENT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 035. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU FOR R3 SRI.K.S.RAJESH FOR R3 SRI.M.P.ABRAHAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI.ABEESH JOSE FOR R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, A/W LAA.684/05, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Both these appeals are directed against the award of the Reference Court in LAR.68/01. While LAA.684/05 is preferred by the claimants, LAA.630/05 is preferred by the Requisitioning Authority. These appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Maradu village for the purpose of fixing water ways terminal at Maradu at the instance of Inland Waterways Authority of India. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 05/03/90. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the land under acquisition into six categories 'A', L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 -2- 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F'. Included in category 'A' were dry lands having the direct frontage of National Highway 47. For these lands the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a land value at the rate of Rs.2,10,161/- per Are. Included in category 'B' were wet reclaimed lands with road frontage and access to river through reclaimed portions of the river. For these lands the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.85,543/- per Are. For the lands included in the other categories, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded different rates. The Reference Court enquired into the Reference under Section 18 initiated at the instance of the claimants. The claimants relied mostly on document No.2741/99 dt.05/08/99 of the Sub Registry, Maradu. This L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 -3- document was marked as Ext.A1 in LAR.66/01 corresponding to LAA.59/02 which is already decided by us by a separate judgment. Document No.1034/97 dated 17/09/77 of the Sub Registry Maradu marked as Ext.A2 in the same case was also relied on by the claimants. Apart from those two documents, document No.1145/99 dt.31/03/99 of the Sub Registry Maradu marked as Ext.A3 was also relied on. There was oral evidence adduced by the parties and their witnesses. In many of the connected cases there were Commission Reports prepared by Advocate Commissioners on the basis of local inspection conducted by them regarding the locational and other advantages enjoyed by the land under acquisition and their comparability to the L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 -4- documents relied on. The learned Subordinate Judge tried a number of cases jointly and decided them by a common judgment. The learned Sub Judge did not become inclined to rely on the documents which were marked as Exts.A1, A2 and A3 in LAR.66/01. We have by a common judgment in a number of cases re-fixed the value of lands included by the Land Acquisition Officer in categories other than category 'A' (see the judgment in L.A.A Nos.282/04, 259/05 and 637/05 etc.). Under those judgments we re-fixed the value of lands included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category 'B' at Rs.1,50,000/- per Are and the value of those included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category 'C' at Rs.1,40,000/- per Are. L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 -5- 2. LAR.68/01 which is the subject matter of these appeals was in fact decided by the learned Subordinate Judge by a separate judgment. The evidence in this case consisted of Exts.A1 to A10, Exts.B1 to B6 and oral evidence of AWs.1 to 8 and Commission Report Exts.C1 and C2. The documents mainly relied on by the parties for getting enhancement were the documents relied on by the parties in the cases already decided by us. The learned Subordinate Judge on appreciating the evidence and taking into account the various circumstances obtaining in the case re-fixed the value of land at Rs.2,59,920/- per Are. This was done relying mainly on document No.3034/97 of the Sub Registry, Maradu which was marked as Ext.A1 in the case and the L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 -6- observations of the Awarding Officer regarding the comparability of that property and the property under acquisition. In other words, it is relying on the basis document itself that the Reference Court re-fixed the land value. What the Land Acquisition Officer had done was to make a deduction of 20% from the value reflected in the basis document for the reason that there is level difference between the basis property and the acquired property from the level of the road. This deduction of 20% made by the Land Acquisition was reduced by the Reference Court and the court below would deduct only 10%. This was how the value of Rs.2,59,920/- per Are was arrived at. 3. The learned counsel for the claimants and the Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 -7- Authority addressed extensive arguments before us in support of the respective grounds raised in the memoranda of appeal preferred by them. While the learned counsel for the claimants urged that the total compensation fixed by the Reference Court is low, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority was that even the enhancement granted is excessive. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that at any rate the award of Rs.2,80,800/- which was made towards enhanced compensation for the structures which existed on the property and the award of Rs.2 lakhs given towards injurious affection was excessive. 4. Apart from the claim for enhanced land value a point which was highlighted by the learned L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 -8- counsel for the claimants was that the court below was not justified in not awarding any compensation for injurious affection for that portion of the remainder property which is having width of six metres and twenty metres on the reason that the above portion has not become completely useless. 5. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and taking into account the decision already taken by us in L.A.A Nos.822/04, 951/04, 874/04 and other connected matters, we are of the view that there is justification for enhancing the land value to a certain extent. Accordingly, allowing the appeal filed by the claimants, we re-fix the land value at Rs.2,90,000/- per Are. L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 -9- 6. A point which was highlighted by the counsel for the claimants during the course of his arguments in support of the claim for enhanced compensation for injurious affection was that the remainder property, the Northern portion, for which no compensation at all was awarded by the court below for injurious affection has been deprived of National Highway frontage completely. The argument was that the property which was originally enjoying the frontage of National Highway will be without any such frontage after the acquisition. The answer of Mr.V.Santharam, the learned counsel for the appellant/ Requisitioning Authority was that even originally the claimant's property was having frontage of National Highway only to a limited extent and that L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 -10- the claimants will be getting the benefit of the IWA terminal road which has already been constructed by the IWA to their terminal. According to Mr.Santharam, the claimants will be able to access their remainder properties through this IWA terminal road and that there will not be any objection on the part of the IWA in the claimants enjoying the facility of the above road. We record the above submission of Sri.Santharam and award only a nominal compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards injurious affection of the Northern portion of the remainder property. The result of the appeals is therefore, as follows:- 7. L.A.A.630/05 is dismissed. LAA.684/05 is allowed re-fixing the land value at Rs.2,90,000/- per Are and awarding a lump sum compensation L. A. A. Nos.630 & 684 of 2005 -11- of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for injurious affection of the northern portion of the remainder property. Both sides are directed to suffer their respective costs in the appeal. The claimants will get statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23 (1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the enhanced land value. But for the compensation for injurious affection, they will get only interest under Section 28. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-