IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 89 of 2001(B)
1. THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THOMAS JOSE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :15/12/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------------
LAA. No. 89 of 2001 & Cross Objection No. 9 of 2008
------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
This appeal is preferred by the requisitioning authority
Thodupuzha Municipality and the memorandum of cross
objection is filed by claimant Nos. 1 and 3 who are
respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in the appeal. The properties
under acquisition were situated in Thodupuzha Village and
the purpose of the acquisition was construction of Municipal
Bus Stand Shopping Complex. The relevant Section 4(1)
notification was published on 20-9-1981. The land
acquisition officer categorised the lands under acquisition
into four categories. Included in category-A were properties
having frontage of the State Highway and lying at a level
with the State Highway. For these properties he awarded
LAA. 89/01
– 2 –
land value at the rate of Rs.5211/- per cent. Included in
category-B were properties lying by the side of the State
Highway at a higher level than the State Highway. For
these properties, he awarded land value at the rate of
Rs.4777/- per cent. Included in category -C were properties
lying by the side of Kothaikunnu Road. For these properties,
he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4560/- per cent.
Included in category – D were properties without frontage of
road and for these properties, he awarded land value at the
rate of Rs.4342/- per cent. The reference court on the basis
of the evidence adduced by the parties particularly, Ext.A8
judgment in an earlier acquisition in the same village for the
purpose of construction of bus stand re-fixed the value of
the properties under acquisition. For properties which were
included by the LAO in category – A the value was re-fixed
at 80% over what was awarded by the LAO. Similarly, for
properties in category B, C and D the values were re-fixed
LAA. 89/01
– 3 –
at 65%, 67% and 50% respectively over what was awarded
by the LA Officer. In the appeal preferred by the requisition
authority it is contended that the enhancement is excessive.
The memorandum of cross objection is for enhancement in
value of structures and also claim for further enhancement
in land value.
2. We have heard the submissions of
Mr.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned counsel for the appellant
Municipality and those of Sri. K.K.Chandran Pillai, Sri.Shaji
P. Chaly, Sri.K.S.Babu, Advocates appearing for the various
claimants, especially Smt. N. Sudha, learned counsel for the
cross objectors. While Mr.Gopalakrishna Kurup argued that
the reasoning adopted by the learned Sub Judge is not
sound and that the enhancement granted in land value is
excessive, Smt.Sudha submitted that the enhancement
granted is inadequate. She submitted in particular, that the
court below was in error in not awarding any enhancement
LAA. 89/01
– 4 –
towards the value of the structures which existed on the
property belonging to them consisting of three buildings and
a cow shed for which the LA Officer awarded a total amount
of Rs.47,399/-. According to her, even adopting the
principle that valuation of buildings as per PWD schedule of
rates is not a pragmatic proposition there was justification
for granting enhancement of at least 30% over what was
awarded.
3. We have considered the rival submissions. We have
carefully gone through the impugned judgment. The
learned counsel for the Municipality is right when he submits
that the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge for
fixing the market value is not very sound. But we in this
appeal are called upon to decide whether the rates
ultimately fixed by the learned Sub Judge can be said to be
excessive. After all, Ext.A8 was in respect of lands in same
village and the acquisition under Ext.A8 was also for a
LAA. 89/01
– 5 –
statutory corporation. We notice the judgment of this court
in State of Kerala v. Jose Simon, 2009(1) KLT 760 which
pertains to acquisition of land in Thodupuzha Village though
pursuant to a notification of some 19 years subsequent to.
We notice various other judgments of this court pertaining
to acquisition of land within the area of Thodupuzha
Municipality. Taking into account those judgments and the
evidence which is actually available on record in this case
we are of the view that the rates fixed under the impugned
judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge as value of the
lands in the various categories under acquisition is more or
less equal to the market value of the properties at relevant
time. We don’t find any reason for interfering with the
fixation of market value under the impugned judgment. As
for the grievance of the cross objectors, in view of our
finding that the value fixed under the impugned judgment is
more or less equal to the market value of the land at the
LAA. 89/01
– 6 –
relevant time, we don’t find any justification for granting
further increase in the value. At the same time, we notice
some genuineness in the grievance of the cross objectors
that the court below should have awarded some
enhancement towards value of structures taking into
account the reality that construction of buildings in
conformity with the PWD schedule of rate is not a pragmatic
proposition. Taking that aspect of the matter into account,
we are of the view that the cross objectors should be
awarded atleast Rs.10,000/- more towards additional
compensation for the buildings which existed on their
property.
4. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal
will stand dismissed and the cross objections will stand
allowed to the extent of awarding further amount of
Rs.10,000/- to the cross objectors over and above what is
awarded by the court below. It is made clear that since the
LAA. 89/01
– 7 –
award of the L.A. Officer is passed subsequent to 30-4-
1982, the claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits
admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act. It is clarified that the solatium component
of the compensation will also carry interest under Section
28. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
ksv/-
LAA. 89/01
– 8 –
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
LAA. NO. 89 0f 2001
JUDGMENT
15th December, 2009