IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 641 of 2006()
1. PEEDIKA VALAPPIL BALAN,
... Petitioner
2. VELLUVALAPPIL CHEEYAYIKUTTY, W/O. BALAN,
Vs
1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :22/10/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.641 of 2006
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The claimants are in appeal. The acquisition was
for the purpose of doubling of railway track. The
property was in Kalliasseri village of Kannur district.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the
rate of Rs.11,000/- per cent against a claim of
Rs.50,000/- per cent by the appellants. It was Ext.A3
judgment which was put in evidence by the claimant in
support of his claim for enhanced land value. Ext.A3
revealed a centage value of Rs.61,000/-. Ext.A3 was a
document of 1996 executed three years prior to the
relevant section 4(1) notification. Ext.A3 was in favour
L. A. A. No.641 of 2006 -2-
of a local co-operative bank. The court below did not
become inclined to award the value revealed by Ext.A3
on the reason that Ext.A3 is situated in an important
area of the town. Nevertheless, the court below
noticed that the distance between the acquired
property and Ext.A3 property was not much and to a
certain extent relying on Ext.A3 itself, the learned
Subordinate Judge fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/-
per cent.
2. Having regard to the submissions addressed
before us by Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal, the learned counsel for
the appellants and Smt.Sumangala, the learned
Government Pleader and having gone through the
impugned judgment and having made a quick re-
appraisal of the evidence particularly Ext.A3, we feel
that the learned Subordinate Judge was a little miserly
L. A. A. No.641 of 2006 -3-
in the matter of fixing the land value. The distance
between Ext.A3 property and the acquired property
even according to the learned Subordinate Judge was
not much. Though not in the important areas of the
town, the acquired property was also enjoying
commercial potentiality obviously because of the
reason that the first claimant himself was
conducting a restaurant in that property. In fact, when
additions are made for the passage of time, the value
of Ext.A3 property as on the date of notification will
come to Rs.78,000/- per cent. We feel that the rate
presently granted at Rs.20,000/- per cent is very low.
On a better assessment based on the evidence on
record, the market value of the lands under acquisition
will have to be fixed at Rs.30,000/- per cent.
Accordingly, in modification of the award of the
L. A. A. No.641 of 2006 -4-
Reference Court, we fix the market value of the land
under acquisition at Rs.30,000/- per cent.
3. It is in evidence that it was a two storied
building which existed on the property under
acquisition. The Advocate Commissioner’s Report is
not of much assistance in the matter of fixing the
proper value of the building. But, we notice that the
building was valued by the Land Acquisition Authority
adopting the PWD schedule of rates. It is well known
that construction of building in accordance with PWD
schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Even
the PWD is tendering out its civil works at 25 to 40%
above its own rates. Taking that aspect of the matter
into account, we are of the view that at least
Rs.20,000/- more should be awarded to the appellants
towards value of the building. We award Rs.20,000/-
L. A. A. No.641 of 2006 -5-
more on that count.
4. The appeal will stand allowed to the above
extent. It is needless to mention that the appellants
will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible
under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and under section 28 of
the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced
compensation to which they become eligible by virtue
of this judgment. Parties are directed to suffer their
costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
kns/-