IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1110 of 2010()
1. K.V.SURESH, S/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN,
... Petitioner
2. K.V.RAMESH, S/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN,
3. K.V.SUJATHA,D/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN,
4. K.V.AJITHA,D/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN,
5. K.V.SUJATH,S/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN,
6. K.V.AJITH, S/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN,
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.SOHAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :19/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No. 1110 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The claimants are in appeal. Their land with structure was
acquired for the purpose of construction of Chovva – Nadal Bye
pass pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on
1/11/1997. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at
the rate of Rs.4,974/- per cent. The Reference Court on
evaluating the evidence, which was adduced by the parties,
would refix the land value at Rs.7,500/- per cent. This was done
mainly by relying on the court’s own judgment in other cases
pertaining to acquisition of identical lands for the same purpose.
It was noticed by the Court below that it was taking into account
Exts.A1 to A4 sale deeds relied on by the claimants that the
court had in those cases refixed the value of land at Rs.7,500/-
per cent. Ext.X1 commission report was another item of
evidence relied on by the claimants. The commissioner had
recommended for awarding Rs.25,000/- per cent as land
LAA.No.1110/2010 2
value. However, this recommendation of the commissioner
was not supported by the value reflected in any sale document.
The court below discarded the commission report and chose to
fix the land value at Rs.7,500/- per cent as already stated.
2. In this appeal, the appellants claim enhanced land value
as well as enhanced compensation towards value of the structure
which existed on the property. The learned counsel for the
appellants would address arguments on the basis of the grounds
raised in the appeal memorandum. According to the learned
counsel, the court below went wrong in discarding the
commissioner’s recommendations. The property was enjoying
the direct frontage of Kuthuparamba – Kannur road and was
situated within 300 meters from Thalassery – Kannur National
Highway. The learned counsel would submit that the court
below was not justified in not awarding any enhancement
towards value of the structures.
3. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners were resisted by Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, learned senior
Government Pleader. According to him, there is no justification
for granting any further enhancement towards land value as
LAA.No.1110/2010 3
there is no evidence to support the same.
4. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed,
we are of the view that in the absence of cogent evidence, the
appellants cannot be awarded more land value than what is
presently awarded under the impugned judgment. As already
indicated, the Court below relied on its own judgment in other
cases pertaining to the same acquisition. The value of
Rs.7,500/- had been fixed by the Court below in those cases
relying on Exts.A1 to A4. It is obvious that for those lands for
which Rs.7,500/- was fixed by the Court below the same rate
as in this case was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
That being the position, the appellants cannot have any
legitimate claim for enhancement over and above Rs.7500/-.
5. It is true that the advocate commissioner’s report had
nothing to do with the value of the structures which existed on
the property. However, we notice that the structure was valued
by the PWD adopting the PWD’s schedule of rates. It is a
matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in
accordance with the published rates of PWD is not a practical
proposition. Even the PWD is tendering out its civil works at 30
LAA.No.1110/2010 4
to 35% above its own rates. Keeping that aspect of the matter
in mind, we are inclined to award Rs.63,750/- to the appellants
as enhanced compensation towards the structure which existed
on the property. The above amount is accordingly awarded.
The appellants/claimants will be entitled for statutory
benefits admissible under Section 23 (2) (231A) and Section 28
of the L.A. Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they
become eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, during the
period of 2087 days condoned by our order in C.M.Appln.
1696/2010 this enhanced compensation will not carry interest
otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act. The parties
are directed to suffer their respective costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk