IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 197 of 2006(D)
1. B.KAMALAMMA, KANNANKARA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. G.VASUDEVAN NAIR, KANNANKARA VEEDU,
3. B.RADHA BAI, KANNANKARA VEEDU,
4. G.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, KANNANKARA VEEDU,
5. B.INDIRA MONY, KANNANKARA VEEDU,
6. G.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, KANNANKARA VEEDU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SIBY MATHEW
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
L.A.A. No.197 of 2006
----------------------------------------------
Dated 26th June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.
Claimants are the appellants. This appeal is directed
against the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1993 in LAR 6/1991
on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. The extent of property
acquired is 30.36 Ares. The acquisition is for the purpose of
Housing Accommodation Scheme sponsored by the Kerala State
Housing Board. Section 4(1) notification was published on
14.7.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation
at Rs.2,465/- per Are. The reference court awarded additional
compensation thus fixing the land value at Rs.3,000/- per Are, as
against the claim of Rs.5,000/- per cent. The claimants did not
adduce any evidence. On the side of the State, RW1 was
examined and Exts.R1 and R2 were marked. The reference court
discussed the acceptability and reliability of Ext.R1 basic
document relying on the evidence of RW1. The court below held
that the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer on the
basis of Ext.R1 document is fair and reasonable. Granting little
enhancement on principles of guess work, the court below refixed
LAA NO.197/2006 2
the land value at Rs.3,000/- per Are.
2. The claimants have produced Annexure B judgment
in LAR Nos.16/91 and 1/93 on the file of the same court which
also relates to acquisition for the same purpose. The reference
court in that case had discussed the entire oral and documentary
evidence. The claimants in that case produced Exta.A1 to A13
and adduced oral evidence. On the basis of the evidence
available on record, the reference court awarded land value at
the rate of Rs.11,725/- per Are. The claimants also produced
Annexure A judgment in LAA 1022/94 against Annexure B
judgment. Annexure A judgment confirms the judgment and
decree passed by the reference court. Though there is no
evidence to show that the property in Annexure B covered by LAR
1/93 and 16/91 is similar and similarly situated to that of the
acquired land, considering the fact that the said properties are
also acquired for the very same purpose, we are of the view that
the land value fixed by the reference court is too nominal. The
reference court ought to have granted a reasonable
enhancement taking into consideration the acquisition of other
LAA NO.197/2006 3
lands in the vicinity for the very same purpose. In the
circumstances, we refix the land value in this case at Rs.4,500/-
per Are. The judgment and decree passed by the reference court
is accordingly modified. The land value per Are is refixed at
Rs.4,500/- per Are.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The
judgment is modified to the said extent. The appellants are
entitled to all statutory benefits, including interest on solatium.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.
tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ
———————————————-
L.A.A. No.197 of 2006
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 26th June, 2008.