IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1094 of 2009()
1. S.MOLLY, NAKKARA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.M.HEMALATHA
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :03/11/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------
LAA. No. 1094 of 2009
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The claimant is in appeal. The acquisition was of
property in Vithura Village. The acquisition was for the
purpose of construction of saddle dam. The relevant
Section 4(1) notification was published on 20-9-1993. The
land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of
Rs.6607/- per Are. Before the reference court the claimant
produced Exts.A1 and A2. A2 was a post notification
document and hence could not have been relied on. As for
Ext.A1 it was submitted on behalf of the claimant before the
reference court itself that A1 need not be considered. A
commissioner who conducted local inspection reported that
the property was at Vithura Junction. He also reported that
the property was very superior to the land covered by the
basis document. But strangely he did not make any
LAA. No. 1094/09
– 2 –
suggestions or recommendations as to the market value of
the property. Ultimately, the learned Subordinate Judge on
guess work would re-fix the market value of the acquired
property at Rs.8075/- per Are.
2. Having made a reappraisal of the evidence and
having considered the submissions addressed before us by
Smt. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.Basant Balaji, learned senior Govt. Pleader we feel that
on a better guess based on the available evidence the
market value can be re-fixed at Rs.8250/- per Are.
Accordingly, we re-fix the market value of the land under
acquisition at Rs.8250/- per Are.
3. Another grievance raised by the appellant is that the
learned Subordinate Judge did not award proper
compensation for improvements which existed on the
property. The Advocate Commissioner recommended for
award of Rs.57,750/- as against the original award of
LAA. No. 1094/09
– 3 –
Rs.22,500/-. The court below awarded Rs.19,250/- more
towards value of improvements. We find that the learned
Subordinate Judge has granted reasonable additional
compensation towards value of improvements. The learned
Subordinate Judge does not give any specific reason as to
why the recommendation of the commissioner is not
accepted in full. So it is clear that the court was not very
much impressed by the evidence of the Commissioner. The
commissioner was examined as AW2. We notice that the
award of the learned Subordinate Judge is less than 30% of
what was originally granted by the L.A.O.
4. Heard both sides. We feel that on a better
appreciation of the evidence including the commissioner’s
report the appellant will be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/-
more over and above what was awarded by the reference
court. We award Rs.5000/- more towards value of
improvements over and above the enhanced compensation
LAA. No. 1094/09
– 4 –
awarded by the LAO.
The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. The
appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible
under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition
Act on the total enhanced compensation inclusive of
solatium to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this
judgment.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
ksv/-