IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 631 of 2004()
1. MARIYAMMA GEORGE, D/O.ISSAC PAULOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :23/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
L.A.A. 631 of 2004
---------------------------------------------
Dated: JUNE 23, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The claimant is in appeal being dissatisfied by the refixation
of compensation by the reference court. The acquisition was of
property in Aymanam village in Kottayam taluk, for the purpose
of construction of Kottayam Medical College By-pass Reach – II.
The relevant sec.4(1) notification was published on 17.9.1995.
The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of
Rs.44,460/- per Are. The reference court on the basis of the
evidence would grant an enhancement of Rs.26,676/- per Are
and re-fix the land value accordingly. The appellant had a claim
for enhancement on the value of structures. The said claim was
completely disallowed by the reference court. Though several
grounds have been raised in this appeal and Mr. Abraham
Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant, addressed arguments
on all those grounds, the learned counsel gave thrust in his
arguments to the following three points:-
i. The land acquisition officer as well as the reference court
went wrong in including the land under acquisition in
L.A.A. 631/2004 2
category B. The land should have been included in category
A itself.
ii. Towards value of the structures, enhancement could
have been granted on the general principle that it is not
practical to put up constructions adopting the PWD schedule
of rates.
Iii. In view of the commissioner’s report, some
compensation should have been awarded towards injurious
affection for 10 cents of property which remains under the
ownership of the appellant after acquisition.
2. All the submissions of the learned counsel were very
strongly resisted by Sri Bijoy Chandran, learned Government
Pleader, who would support the judgment of the reference court
and argue that on the evidence actually available on record, the
learned Subordinate Judge could not have granted more. The
only evidence regarding the market value is the basis document.
What the court below has done is to give 50% enhancement over
and above the value reflected in the basis document.
3. We have anxiously considered the submissions and we
have gone through the relevant records, particularly the
mahazar, notes to award, the commissioner’s report and the
L.A.A. 631/2004 3
advocate commissioner’s oral evidence. Having re-appreciated
the evidence, we feel that there is considerable merit in the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant’s property should have been categorised by the land
acquisition officer and the reference court in category A itself.
Accordingly we hold that the appellant’s land under acquisition
falls within category A.
4. Now coming to the question of re-fixing the market
value of the land under acquisition, as already indicated, the only
document available is the basis document. Going by the basis
document and the impugned judgment, the maximum
enhancement which can be granted is enhancement of Rs.1500/-
per cent over and above what is presently granted by the
reference court under the impugned judgment. Mr. Abraham
Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that there
will be relevant documents like the judgments of the court in
other acquisition cases and even sale documents executed during
the relevant time revealing a much higher land value. He
sought for an order of remand permitting the appellant to
produce evidence. In view of our finding that the acquired
property falls in category A and not in category B, for
L.A.A. 631/2004 4
determining the correct market value, the issue should be
reconsidered by the reference court.
We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and
decree and remand the LAR back to the reference court. Since
the matter is going back to the reference court, it is only
appropriate that the said court examines the claim of the
appellant for additional value towards structure and also towards
compensation for injurious affection for the remaining extent of
10 cents. Accordingly the matter is remanded to the reference
court. The reference court will afford opportunity to the appellant
to adduce further evidence on all the three points indicated
herein above. If the appellant adduces further evidence,
opportunity will be given to the Government for adducing counter
evidence. The court will complete further enquiry and pass
revised judgment in the light of the evidence contained therein,
at the earliest, at any rate within six months from today. Refund
the court fee paid on the appeal memo to the appellant.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-