IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 318 of 2002(D) -------------------------- LAR.244/1996 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- ABRAHAM JOSEPH,VADAKKUMPADATH, ENANALLOOR KARA,ENANALLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.C.S.SHEEJA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) MVIP, KALLOORKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12 /6 /2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.318 OF 2002 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is the appellant and he is aggrieved by the denial of enhanced compensation towards value of timber which stood on the acquired properties. He relied on Ext.A1 certificate issued by the Forest Range Officer. If Ext.A1 was to be accepted, the claimant would have been entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- towards timber value. Ext.A1 was proved by examining the Forest Range Officer. But, the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place any reliance on Ext.A1. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, there was no evidence to hold that the timber which existed on the acquired property was of the best quality. So, on the basis that there was no evidence as regards the quality of the timber, the learned Judge did not rely on Ext.A1. It cannot be said that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was totally faulty. But, we find that to the evidence adduced by Ext.AW1, which is to the effect that the timber which stood on his property was of L.A.A..No.318/2002 2 the best quality, there was absolutely no counter evidence. 2. Having regard to the topography of the land and the tree growth in that area, we feel that it can be assumed that the timber was not of inferior quality. After all, in land acquisition cases determination of the market value will involve certain amount of guess. Doing some guess work, we feel that the appellant is entitled for at least 25,000/- by way of enhanced compensation for the timber which existed on the property. 3. The other grievance, which is raised by the appellant, is that he has not been awarded interest on the solatium component of the total compensation. This issue is covered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 489) . We clarify that the appellant is entitled for interest on the solatium component of the total compensation. The appeal will thus stand allowed to the following extent; The appellant is awarded a further amount of Rs.25,000/- over and above what is awarded under the impugned judgment towards value of timber. It is clarified that L.A.A..No.318/2002 3 the appellant is entitled for interest on the amount which becomes payable to him as solatium. The parties will suffer their costs . PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk L.A.A..No.318/2002 4 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.318 OF 2002 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 12TH JUNE 2009