High Court Kerala High Court

Sri.Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sri.Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 71 of 2010()


1. SRI.THOMAS, S/O. EMMANNUEL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

 Dated :14/01/2010

 O R D E R
       PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
                      ------------------------
                 L.A.A..Nos. 71 & 892 OF 2010
                      ------------------------

            Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011

                            JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan, J.

The claimants are in appeal. Properties covered by these

two cases are falling under Group IV (A). Land value fixed by

the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.19,752/- per Are. The

Reference Court refixed the land value at Rs.58,444/- per Are.

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land

value fixed by the court is too low. We take note of the fact that

while refixing the land value, considering the category of land in

which these lands are situated, the Land Acquisition Officer took

approximately 90% of the land value fixed in respect of the

lands falling under Group III(B). Taking roughly 90% of the

value of the land fixed for Group III(B) as land value, we find

that the land value of properties acquired in these two cases can

be refixed at Rs.38,215/- per cent.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants

that in the property acquired from the claimants in L.A.A.

No.892/2010 there was a building. The Reference Court

LAA.Nos.71 & 892/2010 2

confirmed the value of the building fixed by the Land Acquisition

Officer at Rs.2,57,367/-. The learned counsel for the claimants

submits that the value of the building was fixed based on the

PWD schedule of rate. It is common knowledge that the rate

fixed by the PWD would be always low when compared to the

actual value of the building. Taking note of that fact, we find

that the value of the building can be enhanced by 20% and as

such the appellants in L.A.A.No.892/2010 are entitled to get

Rs.51,473/- over and above the value of the building fixed by

the Land Acquisition Officer as additional compensation towards

the building.

These appeals are allowed to the above extent. The

claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible

under Section 23 (2), 23(1A) and section 28 of the Act on the

total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by

virtue of this judgment.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk