IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 LA.App. No. 307 of 2006 ----------------------------- LAR.248/1987 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS: ------------------------------- 1. S.V.PANDIT, RESIDING AT CONTONMENT, UNIVERSITY.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (DIED) 2. V.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT CONTONMENT, UNIVERSITY.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.RAM MOHAN, RESIDING AT CONTONMENT, UNIVERSITY.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (DIED) 4. R. MOHANAMBIKA, RESIDING AT CONTONMENT, UNIVERSITY.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. 5. SANKARASHI AMMAL RAMU AMMAL, RESIDING AT VARUVILAKAM, PUTHENCHANDA, PALAYAM, VANCHIYOOR PAKUTHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT. M. HEMALATHA RESPONDENTS: ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.(P.H.E.D), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. LA.App. No. 307 of 2006 ...2... ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.2: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -(IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 10.08.2007 IN I.A. NO. 1736/06). BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 307 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. This appeal is filed by the claimants in L.A.R. No. 248/1987 against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2004 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The property belonging to the claimants having an extent of 0.85 Ares of land, 0.61 Ares of land and 0.65 Ares of land situated in Madathuvilakom village was acquired for the extension of drainage scheme to Pandit's colony. Notification under Section 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 29.05.1981. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the land at the rate of Rs.2,470/- per Are for the lands in Sy. No. 3163/2 and 3157/2 and Rs.8,563.73/- per Are for land in Sy. No. 3188/2. The claimants in support of their claim for enhanced compensation, examined AW1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A16. Exhibit C1 was marked as Court Exhibit. The respondents-State and the requisitioning authority did not adduce any evidence, both oral and documentary. L.A.A. 307/06 2 3. The court below relied on Exhibits A3 to A6 and Exhibit A9 for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired property. The court below noticed the fact that as per Exhibit A9 of the year 1986, the land value fixed therein is Rs.30,000/- per cent and in Exhibits A3 to A6 of the year 1988, the land value is Rs.35,000/- per cent. The court below also noticed the fact from the evidence that the properties covered by Exhibits A3 to A6 and A9 lie adjacent to the acquired property. Taking into consideration the above said documents and further for the reason that there is absence of evidence on the part of the respondents, the court below refixed the compensation as just and reasonable at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per cent. 4. We find from the records that Section 3(1) notification was published on 29.05.1981. We are satisfied that the land value of Rs.30,000/- per cent as on 1981 is just and reasonable. Though the counsel for the claimants contended that they are entitled to more land value than what is fixed by the court below, we find no reason to interfere with the reasons stated by the court below for fixing the land value at the rate noted above. L.A.A. 307/06 3 In the above circumstances, we confirm the award passed by the court below. We have noticed that the court below failed to grant interest on solatium. The claimants are entitled to interest on solatium, in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India (2006(8) SCC 457). The appellants-claimants are entitled to interest on solatium from 19.09.2001. In the result, the appeal fails and therefore dismissed. The claimants are entitled to interest on solatium as stated above. There will be no order as to cost. KURIAN JOSEPH JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE smp