IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 398 of 2006(D)
1. P.VASUDEVAN, KANNEL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :02/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
-------------------------------
L.A.A.Nos.398 of 2006 & 16 of 2007
-------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
L.A.A.No.398 of 2006 is preferred by the claimant
and L.A.A.No.16 of 2007 is preferred by the requisitioning
authority. The case pertains to acquisition of land and building in
Thrikkunnappuzha Village , for the purpose of widening of
National Waterways Terminal. The Land Acquisition Officer
fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.6,131/- per Are and
awarded a total amount of Rs.2,39,427/- as compensation for
the building as well as for the appurtenant structures.
2. The evidence before the Reference Court consisted
of Exts.A1 to A1, the oral evidence of witnesses, Aws.1 to 5,
and the report and plan submitted by the Advocate
Commissioner and the Expert, Exts.C1, C1(a) and C2.
Significantly, there was no counter oral or documentary evidence
at all, on the side of the Government or the requisitioning
L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007
2
authority. The Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1 report had
recommended for award of a total amount of Rs.5,00,495/- as
compensation for the building. The court below did not become
inclined to rely on the Advocate Commissioner’s report, as it was
noticed that the expert who assisted the Commissioner had
prepared the report even before the court had issued
commission warrant to the Advocate. However, the learned Sub
Judge awarded an enhanced amount of Rs.1,19,713/- towards
compensation for the building and structures existed between
the property, thus, awarding 50% more than what was awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer. Evaluating the evidence
adduced by the parties regarding the market value of the land,
the learned Sub Judge re-fixed the market value at the rate of
Rs.17,500/- per Are.
3. In the appeal preferred by the requisitioning
authority, various grounds are raised contending that the
enhancement granted by the reference court is excessive. But,
L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007
3
in the appeal preferred by the claimant, various grounds are
raised contending that what has been granted by the reference
court is very low.
4. The learned counsel, Sri.V.Santharam, appearing
for the requisitioning authority, as also the learned counsel,
Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair, appearing for the claimant, have
addressed before us on the basis of the grounds raised in their
respective appeal memorandum.
5. Sri.Santharam, the learned counsel for the
requisitioning authority, has referred to the judgment of this
Court in LAA.Nos.619 & 414 of 2006, and submitted that as per
those judgments, which also pertain to acquisition of identical
land in the same village, this Court has finally re-fixed the value
at the rate of Rs.13,795/- per Are. He further submitted that
the award of an additional compensation of Rs.1,19,713/-
towards the value of the building is not at all acceptable, as
according to him, there is a clear finding to the effect that the
L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007
4
Commissioner’s report is not dependable, and taking into
consideration the oral evidence alone, it was not all proper for
the court below to grant so much of additional compensation for
the building.
6. The submissions raised by the learned counsel,
Sri.V.Santharam, were resisted by the learned counsel,
Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the
claimant. He submitted that unlike the properties covered by
L.A.A.Nos. 619 & 414 of 2006, the property under acquisition in
this case was situated at Thonnakkal near to Kumaranasan
Smarakam. He also submitted that the area in question is a
very important tourism destination and regular boat races are
being conducted in the area. According to him, the property
under acquisition in this case has to be treated as superior to
other properties. He also argued that the court below went
wrong in not relying on the Advocate Commissioner’s report.
L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007
5
7. We have very anxiously considered the rival
submissions addressed at Bar by the counsel on either side. We
are of the view that the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.Nos.619
& 414 of 2006, fixing the market value of identical lands, at the
rate of Rs.13,795/- per Are is binding on the claimant as well.
The claimant cannot aspire for higher rate as the Land
Acquisition Officer has treated the property under acquisition as
well as the properties covered by the judgments in L.A.A.Nos.
619 & 414 of 2006 to be of equal value.
8. Notwithstanding the persuasiveness of the
submissions made by learned counsel, Sri.V.Santharam, in the
context of compensation awarded for the building, we are not
inclined to interfere with the Award of an amount of
Rs.1,19,713/- as additional compensation for the building.
Obviously, it is by adopting the PWD schedule of rates that the
Land Acquisition authority fixed the structure value at the rate of
L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007
6
Rs.2,39,427/-. Even, PWD tenders their civil works at the rate
of 40% above the published rates.
9. The learned Sub Judge certainly found that the
Commissioner’s report is not dependable, but, this finding was
entered mainly on the premise that the Engineer who assisted
the Commissioner had prepared the report even before the
Commissioner had been appointed. In short, the court thought
that the Engineer was the claimant’s own man. But, as per the
details discernible from the mahazar prepared by the land
acquisition authorities itself, the value given for the building
and the appurtenant structures were substantial. It is not in
dispute that the building was only 16 years old. We, feel,
having regard to the undeniable fact that the construction cost
during the past decades has been on the increase, the
enhancement presently granted is not excessive. Hence, we
approve the said award.
L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007
7
10. In the result, L.A.A.No.16/2007 is allowed to the
extent of re-fixing the market value at land at the rate of
Rs.13,795/- per Are. L.A.A.No.398 of 2006 is dismissed. The
claimant is entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under the
Land Acquisition Act, on the total enhanced compensation, to
which he becomes eligible, by virtue of this judgment.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
nj.