IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 224 of 2004()
1. RADHA LAKSHMI,
... Petitioner
2. BABURAJ,
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDHAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :SRI.V.K.BEERAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
---------------------------------------------
Dated: JUNE 4, 2009
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In this appeal, the appellants who are claimants D and E in
LAR 17 of 1998 of II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, challenged
the judgment and decree of that court dated November 19, 2001
awarding a compensation of Rs.5000/- per cent, enhancing the
compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer at the rate
of Rs.7132/- per Are i.e. Rs.2886/- per cent.
2. The facts in brief are these: An extent of 0.1305 hectare
of land in Sy.No.569/5B of Killimangalam village was acquired for
the purpose of reconstruction of Killimangalam overbridge. Sec.4
(1) notification was published in gazette dated July 18, 1995.
The land acquisition authority fixed the land value at Rs.7132/-
per Are i.e. Rs.2886/- for one cent, based on document
No.921/1995 of Chelakkara Sub Registry. The claimants claimed
enhancement at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per cent. The
Reference Court fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.5000/- per
L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
2
cent. Dissatisfied with the said enhancement granted by the
reference court, the claimants have come up in appeal.
3. Before the reference court, Aws.1 and 2 were examined
and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the claimants.
RW.1 was examined and Ext.R1 was marked on the side of the
respondent State. The report of the commissioner was marked
as Ext.X1.
4. After the reference was taken on file by the reference
court, the original claimant died. His legal heirs were impleaded
as additional claimants B, C, D and E. Claimant B filed a
statement before the reference court stating that he has no right
over the property in view of the partition effected in their family.
After the judgment and decree of the reference court claimants B
and C also died. Claimants D and E are the legal heirs. This
appeal is filed by claimants D and E.
5. The reference court rejected the basic document as
there is no evidence to show that the lands covered by the basic
sale deed and the acquired land are similarly situated. The
rough sketch produced along with the award shows that the land
L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
3
covered by the basic document is situated in a less important
locality. The commissioner has reported in his report Ext.X1
that the acquired property is near Chelakkara center which is a
business center. Therefore we are of the view that the learned
Sub Judge is justified in rejecting the basic document.
6. The lower court did not accept the documents Exts.A1
and A2. By Exts.A1 and A2, 10 cents of land were sold for
Rs.1,95,000/- each. The commissioner has reported that the
lands covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are 3 kms. away from the
acquired land and are situated in a more important locality,
therefore, not comparable with the acquired plot. That being
so, we feel that the lower court is right in not accepting Exts.A1
and A2.
7. The learned Sub Judge, taking into consideration the fact
that the acquired land has road frontage and is situated near
Chelakkara center, fixed the land value at Rs.5000/- per cent.
PW.1 has testified that the acquired land has road frontage and
that it is near Chelakkara center which is a business center.
This is not challenged in cross-examination. Admittedly the
L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
4
acquired property is near Chelakkara center which is a business
center. The commissioner has reported in Ext.X1 that at present
the market value of the land in that locality is about Rs.25,000/-
to Rs.30,000/- per cent. Taking into consideration the
importance of the locality where the acquired land is situated and
having regard to the fact that the acquired land had the
potentiality for being used for commercial and residential
purposes and as there was fair possibility of increase in its
market value in the near future, and in the circumstances of the
case and in the light of the principles laid down in Atma Singh v.
State of Haryana (AIR 2008 SC 709), we feel that the market
value of the land acquired as on the date of publication of sec.4
(1) notification i.e. during 1995 can be reasonably fixed at
Rs.8000/- per cent.
8. The reference court awarded Rs.10,000/- towards
injurious affection of the remaining 3 cents of land of the
claimants on the Eastern side of the road. We are of the view
that the said compensation awarded is reasonable.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The value of the land
L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
5
acquired is fixed at Rs.8000/- per cent. The appellants are
entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium and
interest to the enhanced compensation. The enhanced
compensation shall be disbursed to claimants D and E, the
appellants. The claimants are entitled to proportionate costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-
L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
6
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
——————————
L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
JUDGMENT
——————————
4.6.2009
