IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA App No. 676 of 2001(D)
1. KURIAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :18/01/2008
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------------------
L.A.A. NO. 676 OF 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated
31.1.2001 in L.A.R. No.177 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sub Court,
N. Parur. The claimant is the appellant.
2. An extent of 13.70 Ares of land belonging to the claimant was
acquired for the construction of NH 17, North Parur. Section 4(1)
notification was published on 22.12.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.22,494/- per Are. The reference court
refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.35,990/- per Are as against a claim
of Rs.50,000/- per cent. The claimant submitted that the acquired land is
lying within Parur Municipality and facing tarred motorable road on both
sides. It is further submitted that the land value awarded by the reference
court is too low. The claimant has a further case that due to the
acquisition, 3.9 cents of land which form part of the acquired land has
become unfit for any purpose and therefore the claimant is entitled to
L.A.A.NO.676/2001 2
compensation for injurious affection. The court below relied on Ext.A2,
certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R. No.150 of 1997. Ext.A2 shows
that 60% enhancement was granted in that case. In the light of Ext.A2, the
reference court refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.35,990/- per Are.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted
that Ext.A3 sale deed which relates to land similarly situated as the
acquired land was not relied on by the court below though the assignor of
the land covered by Ext.A3 was examined as AW.3 and he had tendered
evidence stating that the acquired land is having more importance than the
land covered by Ext.A3. Counsel also submitted that Ext.A4 sale deed,
though produced before the court, was not even adverted to by the
reference court for the purpose of taking a decision as to what exactly was
fair and just land value. Another contention raised by the claimant is that
Ext.A1 commission report and Ext.A1(a) sketch filed in O.S.No.748 of
1996 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, North Parur would show that the
value of the compound wall and septic tank after depreciation was assessed
at Rs.35,580/-. The reference court relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court reported in Dr. Gurmakh Ram Madan v. Bhagwan Das, 1988(6)
JTSC 169 and held that Exts.A1 and A1(a) are not admissible in evidence
and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. The certified copies of Exts.A1 and
L.A.A.NO.676/2001 3
A1(a) were not acted upon for the reason that the originals were not
produced. In this connection, it may be noted that the originals of Exts.A1
and A1(a) were produced before the civil court in the said suit. Therefore,
the only possibility was to produce certified copies of the same. The
reason for not producing the originals is self explanatory. Therefore, the
finding of the court below that the claimant is not entitled to enhancement
for the structural value cannot stand.
4. The next contention is regarding the claim for compensation for
injurious affection in respect of the unacquired portion of 3.9 cents. In the
light of the observations made above, the claim for injurious affection also
has to be reconsidered. In the decision reported in Yamuna v. Special
Tahsildar, 2007(3) K.L.T. 581, it was held that under the amended Act,
the claimant is entitled to claim land value before the reference court in
excess of what he had claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer and
that the court is bound to independently investigate the claim based on the
material on record. The claimant also contended before us that he is
entitled to interest on solatium. It has been held by the Supreme Court in
the decision reported in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, 2006(8) SCC
457 that the claimant is entitled to claim interest on solatium with effect
from 19.9.2001. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the
L.A.A.NO.676/2001 4
matter requires reconsideration by the reference court.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the
reference court for denovo consideration. The case shall be decided within
a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any. The
appellant is entitled to refund of court fee. There will be no order as to
costs.
(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
sp/
L.A.A.NO.676/2001 5
KURAIN JOSEPH &
HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
L.A.A. .NO676/2001
JUDGMENT
18th JANUARY, 2008