IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 50 of 2009()
1. R.PARAMESWARAN, S/O. RAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LAND ACQUSITION
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
----------------------------------
L.A.A. No.50 of 2009
----------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of January 2011
J U D G M E N T
N.K.Balakrishnan, J.
Pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 20.4.1999
0.1600 hectares (39.53 cents) of land which belonged to the
appellant was acquired for Kozhikode-Palakkad by-pass road. It
was classified as wet land. The L.A.Officer determined the
compensation fixing the land value at Rs.8,000/- per cent.
Before the Reference Court Exts.A1 to A4 and Commissioner’s
Report C1 were marked and Aws.1 and 2 were examined. The
basis document was marked as Ext.R1. After considering the
oral and documentary evidence the learned Sub Judge refixed
the land value at Rs.11,000/- per cent.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that
the land value re-determined by the Reference Court is too low
and in-adequate. It is also contended that the appellant was not
granted compensation on the ground of injurious severance.
L.A.A. No.50 of 2009
-: 2 :-
3. The learned counsel has relied upon Ext.A1 document
dated 4.6.1998. It is in respect of 8.10 cents of land which was
sold for consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-; at the rate of Rs.12,340/-
per cent. Another document in respect of 10 cents of land was
also relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant where
the total consideration was Rs.3,00,000/-. Yet another document
relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimant is Ext.A3
which also is a pre-notification document where the sale
consideration shown was Rs.90,000/- .
4. The learned counsel also drew our attention to Ext.C1
report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner who inspected
the property and drew a sketch. The Commissioner has reported
about the importance of the locality. The acquired property was
a paddy field and not a dry land and so the value reflected in the
documents referred to by the claimant cannot be adopted to
value the acquired land. It was rightly held by the learned Sub
Judge also. It was also submitted that the acquired land is
having road frontage and is situated in an important locality,
some where near Government Victoria College, Palakkad.
Considering all the aspects, we find something more has to be
L.A.A. No.50 of 2009
-: 3 :-
granted as enhanced compensation. We find that the land value
can be refixed at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per cent. Since no
evidence has been let in, the claimant is not entitled to get
compensation on the ground of injurious severance.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part refixing the
land value at Rs.13,000/- per cent. The claimant is entitled to
get statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(IA) and Section
28 of the L.A.Act.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
J UDGE.
Jvt