IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 719 of 2009(D) -------------------------- LAR.183/2007 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ---------------------- SOBHA RAVEENDRAN, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, 28/2187, PANDARACHIRA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(C), RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM,. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS FOR R1 SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------- L.A.A No.719 OF 2009 and Cross Objection No.97/09 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Court, Ernakulam in LAR.No.183/2007. In LAR.No.183/07 an area of 20 Sq.m had been acquired for the purpose of railway line and the Land acquisition Officer has fixed the land value at Rs.2775.79 per Sq.m. The Land Acquisition Court on reference, had enhanced the land value to Rs.5,826/- per Sq.m. and awarded the compensation. It is against that decision the claimant has come up for enhancement and the Railway has filed a cross objection challenging the quantum fixed by the Land Acquisition Court. 2. This appeal is a subject matter where in the Land Acquisition Court has tried the case along with other cases and fixed the land value. The Land Acquisition Court really relied upon Ext.A6 and Ext.A7. As per Ext.A6 the Land Acquisition court enhanced the Land Value which was acquired in 2002 and in L.A.A No.719/2009 2 Ext.A7 judgment, High Court fixed the land value at Rs.4,56,950/- per are. A perusal of para 13 of the award would reveal Ext.A6 property is lying 300 mtrs. away from the acquired property therein and lying adjacent to the same Palarivattom - Vyttila road. it is found that the properties are comparable and identical. So, this court fixed the land value for the land which was acquired in 2002. Now the Land Acquisition Court found that there is a gap of 5 years between the 4(1) notification in the acquisition and therefore, at the rate of 10% per year it increased the land value by 50%. Thereafter, it also found that the land involved in LAR.183 is in category No.2 and therefore reduced it by 15 % and calculated the compensation. It awarded an additional sum of Rs.61,007/- for the land value. Now the learned counsel for the appellant would strongly contend before me that the range of enhancement should have been 15% per year and if it is calculated in that way the claimant is entitled to a reasonable enhanced compensation. In support of the arguments he had cited a decision of the Supreme Court in JT 2008 (9) SC 480 The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai, Jivanbhai Patel and another where the Honourable Apex court found that the increase in the land prices L.A.A No.719/2009 3 depend upon four factors, namely, situation of the land, nature of development with surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area and the demand for land in the area. The honourable Apex court also found that in some area the demand is more high and in some area it is very law and the balance has to be strict as well. In para 15 of the judgment, the apex court held that “as the percentage of increase is with reference to the market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate and apex court had also shown an example with reference to 10% increase over a basic price of Rs.10 per Sq.m.” 3. I feel the discussion of the Land Acquisition Court would reveal that it had taken into consideration importance of the area and also the lie of the land and closeness of the railway track etc. and decided that increase land value at 10 % per year making interest at 50%. Now if the theory of cumulative increase is taken into consideration, the methodology worked out would be as follows: As per Ext.A7 judgment, the land value per are come to Rs.4,56,950/- which means approximately Rs.4,570 per Sq.m. L.A.A No.719/2009 4 When cumulative increase method is adopted, the land value at the end of the 5th year would come to Rs.7,360.84. When it is multiplied with 20, which is the area taken, it will come to Rs.1,47,216/-. It has to be stated that this land value is fixed for category No.1. As per the judgment, 15% is deducted from the total value for category No.2. When it is calculated, it will come to about Rs.22,082 and when it is deducted from the first amount of Rs.1,47,216/- it will come to Rs.1,25,133/-. The Land Acquisition Officer had already awarded Rs.55,516/-. Therefore the enhanced land value entitlement would be Rs.69,617. instead of 61,007 calculated by the Land Acquisition Court. 4. The learned counsel had grievance regarding the fixing of the value of improvements etc. But the materials are not sufficient to interfere with the view taken by the Land Acquisition Court and therefore I find that the appeal requires only interference with respect to the land value and it is made clear that the claimant will be entitled to get a sum of Rs.69,617/- as enhanced land value with all the benefits granted by the Land Acquisition Court in accordance with law. L.A.A No.719/2009 5 5. Since I had enhanced the land value by adopting the cumulative method the question of reduction of the compensation did not arise for determination and therefore the cross objection is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sou.