IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 319 of 2007(D)
1. BIJUMON, S/O.NAGOOR MOIDEEN RAWTHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :29/10/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------
LAA. No. 319 of 2007
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The claimant is in appeal. The property under
acquisition was in Enadimangalam Village. Acquisition was
pursuant to notification dated 19-12-2003. The acquisition
was for the purpose of establishment of food park for
KINFRA, the second respondent. The total extent of the
property was 3 acres 91.65 cents. The land acquisition
officer included the property under acquisition in category –
II, i.e., the property having frontage of estate road and
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,400/0 per Are. For
the improvements which existed on the property consisting
mainly of rubber trees, the L.A.O. awarded compensation of
Rs.61,200/-. The evidence before the reference court on
the side of the appellant claimant consisted of Exts.A1 to
A3, commission report C1, C2 mahazar and C3 sketch
LAA. No. 319/07
– 2 –
prepared by commissioner, apart from his own oral evidence
as AW1. On the side of the respondents the same consisted
of R1 group sketch, R2 basis document and testimony of
RW1. The learned Sub Judge on evaluating the evidence
would re-fix the land value at Rs.7,260/- per Are. Towards
value of improvements, no additional compensation was
awarded. In this appeal, the appellant has raised several
grounds assailing what is described as the gross inadequacy
of the compensation re-determined by the reference court.
2. We have heard the submissions Mr.V.N.Achutha
Kurup, learned senior counsel for the appellant and those of
Sri. G.S. Reghunath, learned counsel for the requisitioning
authority. We have also heard the submissions of Smt.
Latha T. Thankappan, Senior Govt. Pleader. Our attention
was drawn by Mr. Achutha Kurup to the impugned judgment
and also to the commissioner’s report and the sketch
prepared by the commissioner. Mr. Kurup submitted at the
very outset that unlike the other properties which were
LAA. No. 319/07
– 3 –
included by the L.A. Officer in category – II, the property
under acquisition in this case was enjoying frontage of
estate road on three sides. The other properties had
frontage of that road only on one side. He submitted that
these properties were therefore eligible to be included in
category – I. He submitted that the court below ought to
have awarded additional compensation towards value of
improvements accepting the commissioner’s
recommendations. All the submissions of Mr.Kurup were
forcefully resisted by G.S. Reghunath who was supported in
all his submissions by the learned Govt. Pleader. Mr.
Reghunath drew our attention to our judgment in LAA. No.
876/07 and connected matters. He submitted that for the
properties included in category – II, this Court has re-fixed
the land value at Rs.8,800/- per Are only. According to him,
there is no warrant for granting any amount at the rate of
more than Rs.8,800/- per Are towards land value in this
case. He however, agreed that there can be justification for
LAA. No. 319/07
– 4 –
granting nominal increase to the value of improvements as
was done by this court in L.A.A. No. 876 of 2007 and
connected cases. He pointed out that the property under
acquisition in this case is a very large extent and hence the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Haryana State
Electricity Board and another v. Maha Singh and another,
AIR 1997 SC 2553, Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi v.
Mrudula JyothiRao and others, AIR 2007 SC 614 and Gajjan
Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1998 SC 2417 will
have to be followed and a deduction will have to be made
for the largeness of the extent.
3. We have very anxiously considered the rival
submissions addressed at the Bar. It has been found by the
learned Subordinate Judge that the property under
acquisition in this case was enjoying frontage of estate road
on three sides. We are of the view that it was not proper to
have treated this property on a par with other properties
included by the L.A.O. in category – II. According to us, the
LAA. No. 319/07
– 5 –
market value of the land under acquisition in this case
should be more than that of the properties included in
category – II. In the judgment in LAA. 876 of 2007 and
connected matters we have re-fixed the market value of the
land in category – I at Rs.11,000/- per Are. But we notice
that the property in this case is large extent and hence
applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Maha Singh
and another, AIR 1997 SC 2553, Niranjan Umesh Chandra
Joshi v. Mrudula JyothiRao and others, AIR 2007 SC 614 and
Gajjan Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1998 SC
2417 we re-fix the land value in this case at Rs.10,000/-
per Are. We have awarded increase towards value of
improvements in all cases where the reference court has not
granted any increase towards value of improvements by our
common judgment in LAA. No. 876 of 2007 and connected
matters. Following the view that we have taken in that case
we award a further amount of Rs.19,000/- over and above
LAA. No. 319/07
– 6 –
the sum of Rs.61,200/- awarded by the reference court to
the appellant in this case towards value of improvements.
We make it clear that a total amount of Rs.80,200/- is
awarded to the appellant by virtue of the judgment of the
reference court and by virtue of this judgment.
Appeal stands allowed as above. No costs. On the total
enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes
eligible will be entitled to all statutory benefits otherwise
admissible under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the L.A.
Act.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
ksv/-