IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 198 of 2004(D) -------------------------- LAR.177/2001 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- LAKSHMIKUTTY, CHENTHARA VEEDU, NANGYARKULANGARA, CHINGOLI. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.K.B.SAJEESH SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.C.S.SUNIL SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA NO.III, STPS HARIPAD). 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD.,(NTPC), KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.V.J.JOSEPH SMT.M.V.LIGI FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.198 OF 2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 29thday of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Chingoli Village of Karthikappally Taluk was acquired for the purpose of NTPC pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 8/8/1992. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the land as reclaim land and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3260/- per Are. The Reference Court under impugned judgment refixed the land value at Rs.4890/- per Are. There was a building on the property under Acquisition. According to the claimant, the building was a new one and even after acquisition, the NTPC is utilising the building as their recreation club . For the building, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at Rs.1,12,265/- The claimant relied on Ext.C2 commission report prepared with the assistance of AW2, an expert engineer. On the terms of Ext.C2, the value of the building was Rs.3,23,705/-. Though AW2 was examined as witness on the side of the claimant, the court below did not place any reliance on Ext.C2. Further since L.A.A..No.198/2004 2 the court below was convinced that the Ext.A3 was a good one, what the court did was to grant 60% enhancement over what was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.P.S.Sreedharan Pillai and those of Sri.V.J.Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority. We heard Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Senior Government Pleader also. We have gone through the impugned judgment and we have made quick reappraisal of the evidence. It is brought to our notice that the requisitioning authority has taken a policy decision to approve enhancement of land value at the rate of 150% over what was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. When that policy is adopted in this case, the land value will have to be refixed at Rs.8150/- per Are. 3. We ,therefore, refix the value of land under acquisition at Rs.8,150/- per Are. We find elements of genuineness in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant regrading the inadequacy of the value awarded for the building. We accept the submission of the learned counsel that the building in question is even now utilised by the requisitioning authority as L.A.A..No.198/2004 3 recreation club. We feel that the learned Sub Judge was a little miserly when it came to awarding value for the building. We award a further amount of Rs.30,000/- towards th value of the building. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent, but without any order as to costs. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits under Section 23 (2) 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation which becomes admissible to her by virtue of our refixation of the compensation. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk