The Area Marketing Manager vs Gopinatha Menon on 10 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 833 of 2005()


1. THE AREA MARKETING MANAGER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GOPINATHA MENON, KALLARA HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :10/11/2009

 O R D E R
                   PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
                K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
             -------------------------------------------
              L.A.Appeal No.833 of 2005
             -------------------------------------------
       Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009

                          JUDGMENT

Pius C.Kuriakose,J.

The Requisitioning Authority is in appeal. The case

pertains to acquisition of land in Nadama village and the

property situated very near to Mathoor junction on the

Eroor-Thripunithura main road. Pursuant to Section 4(1)

notification published on 15.2.1997, the L.A.Officer

included the property in category-1 and awarded land

value at the rate of Rs.1,22,000/- per Are. The reference

court under the impugned judgment re-fixed the value of

land at Rs.1,90,000/- per Are. For the two structures

which existed on the property under acquisition, the

L.A.Officer awarded an amount of Rs.96,522/-. The

reference court, relying on Ext.A5 commission report and

the oral evidence of AW3-the engineer who assisted the

Advocate Commissioner appointed by the civil court,

would re-fix the value of the building and other structures

at Rs.2,01,821/-.

LAA No.833/2005 2

2. Smt.Thushara James, the learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that for the other properties under

acquisition which were also included in category-1, the

L.A.Officer awarded land value at the rate of

Rs.1,22,000/- per Are. The reference court re-fixed the

land value at the rate of Rs.1,78,600/- only. There was no

justification for awarding higher amounts for the

property under acquisition. Even though the submission

of the learned counsel is attractive, we notice that the

claimant in this case had a contention that the property

involved in this case alone had direct frontage of the

main road. More over, we notice that this property was

in close proximity to Mathoor junction. According to us,

those two advantages will certainly justify award of

slightly higher amount of Rs.1,90,000/- per Are to the

land under acquisition. Hence, we approve the award of

land value at the rate of Rs.1,90,000/- per Are by the

reference court.

3. It was relying on Ext.A5 report submitted by the

Advocate Commissioner who was appointed not by the

land acquisition court, but by a civil court in a civil suit

LAA No.833/2005 3

filed by the claimant, that the court below re-fixed the

value of the building at Rs.2,01,821/-. This is what the

court says about the value recommended by AW3.

“It is stated by AW3 that he has assessed the

value as per the data available from the PW3. It

goes without saying that even PWD rates are

much below the market rate. However, I am of

the view that Ext.A5(a) valuation statement can

be safely accepted for fixing the value of the

buildings situating in the property in LAR

No.160/2000.”

4. The learned subordinate judge omitted to notice

that the PWD schedule of rates was adopted by AW3 in

1999, while the acquisition was in 1997. The learned

subordinate judge, in our opinion, should have noticed

that the detailed valuation statement prepared by the

engineers attached to the acquiring authority, namely,

the serving engineers of the PWD, were not made

available so as to enable the court or AW3 to make a

comparison. The action of the learned subordinate judge

in adopting Ext.A5(a) valuation statement in full cannot

be approved. At the same time, we notice that the

LAA No.833/2005 4

structures consisted of a double storeyed building and a

tiled building and the compensation awarded by the

L.A.Officer was certainly inadequate.

5. On a better assessment of the evidence on record,

we re-fix the value of the buildings which existed on the

property under acquisition at Rs.1,76,821/-. In

modification of the impugned judgment, we order that

the total compensation payable to the appellant for the

buildings which existed on the property will be only

Rs.1,76,821/- as against the compensation awarded under

the impugned judgment.

6. Mr.Chandran Pillai, the learned counsel for the

respondents has a grievance that the respondent did not

get full statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23

(1)(A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and

according to him, there are mistakes in the impugned

judgment.

7. We make it clear that on the total enhanced

compensation to which the appellant is correctly entitled

by virtue of the award of the L.A.Officer, the judgment of

the reference court and the present judgment, he will be

LAA No.833/2005 5

entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under

Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal

allowed to the above extent, but without any order as to

costs.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE

css/