IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1096 of 2007(D)
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MADHAVI AMMA, VALIYAPARAMBATH MOKERI,
... Respondent
2. MEENAKUMARAN, VALIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
3. CHITHRA RAMAKRISHNAN,
4. PREETI, W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR,
5. SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :15/02/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
----------------------------------
L.A.A. No.1096 of 2007 &
Cross Objection No.56/2009
----------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Pius C.Kuriakose,J.
The appeal is preferred by the Government and
the memorandum of Cross Objection is instituted by the
claimants. The lands under acquisition were situated in
Kavilumpara village of Kozhikode Taluk. The acquisition was
for the purposes of Kavilumpara Grama Panchayat pursuant
to Section 4(1) notification published on 04.6.2002. The
purpose of the acquisition was for the construction of a bus
stand for the Panchayat. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed
land value at Rs.3,684/- per cent. The Reference Court under
the impugned judgment, on the basis of the evidence which
came on record, re-fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per
cent. In the appeal preferred by the Government, the above
re-fixation is challenged as highly excessive, while in the
memorandum of Cross Objection preferred by the claimant it
is urged that the land value re-fixed by the court is
inadequate.
L.A.A.1096/2007 & CO.56/2009
2
2. The memorandum of Cross Objection raised two
important claims. The first claim is that the claimants should
have been awarded compensation for injurious affection of
the unacquired property of the claimant which extends to
below 25 cents of land. It is contended that the unacquired
portion is L-shaped property having a width of 3 metres and
hence cannot be utilised for putting up buildings. The other
claim which is urged through the memorandum of Cross
Objection is that neither the LA Officer nor the court below
awarded any compensation for the compound wall which
existed on the property under acquisition. The contention is
that for the compound wall the court below should have
awarded the amount recommended by the Advocate
Commissioner on the basis of an inspection conducted by
her.
3. Sri. V.N. Ramesan Nambisan, learned counsel for
the cross objector, Sri.C. Jayachandran, learned counsel for
the requisitioning authority, and Sri. Basant Balaji, learned
senior Government Pleader for the Government addressed us
in detail. Mr. Ramesan Nambisan drew our attention to
Ext.X1 commission report and X2 plan submitted by the
commissioner. According to him, adequate compensation
L.A.A.1096/2007 & CO.56/2009
3
should have been awarded for the injurious affection of the
remainder property, the extent of which was approximately
25 cents. He referred to the commission report and
submitted that no reason has been assigned by the court
below for declining compensation for the substantial
compound walls which existed on the property under
acquisition. Mr. Nambisan would lastly submit that the
claimant will have to be satisfied with the land value of the
25 cents re-fixed under the impugned judgment. The
submissions of Mr. Nambisan were resisted by Mr.
Jayachandran, counsel for the requisitioning authority. Mr.
Jayachandran was supported in all his submissions by the
learned senior Government Pleader. According to Mr.
Jayachandran, certain documents have been produced by the
Panchayat in this appeal and those documents will reveal
that even after the acquisition, market value of the land in
the locality remained far lesser than the rate presently fixed
under the impugned judgment. He justified the action of the
court below in declining any compensation for injurious
affection of the remainder property. According to him, the
commission report was not acceptable regarding the value of
the compound walls and hence in the absence of evidence no
L.A.A.1096/2007 & CO.56/2009
4
compensation could have been awarded for the compound
walls. Mr. Jayachandran requested that the matter may go
back to the reference court so that documents produced in
this court can be produced by the requisitioning authority so
that, the LAR court would be able to decide the question of
correct market value payable for the property under
acquisition.
4. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions
we are of the view that there is considerable merit in the
submission of the learned counsel for the claimant/cross
objector that the claimant/cross objector is entitled for
compensation for injurious affection for the unacquired
property which extends to 24 to 25 cents of land. Ext.X1
commission report would clearly show that the remainder
property has been reduced to two strips long in the form of
‘L’ with a width of 3 metres only. We are of the view that the
remainder property has been injuriously affected at least to
the extent of 10%. The same is the position regarding
grievance voiced by the cross objector regarding
compensation payable for the compound wall. Some
compensation should have been awarded for the walls which
existed on the property under acquisition. The court below
L.A.A.1096/2007 & CO.56/2009
5
was not justified in declining any compensation for the wall.
As for the market value of the land we are of the view that
the said issue is to be reconsidered by the reference court
giving liberty to both sides to produce whatever documents
they want to including documents produced before this court
by the Panchayat.
5. The result of the above discussions is as follows:
The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside.
LAR.4/2005 is remanded to Subordinate Judge’s Court,
Vadakara. That court is directed to permit all parties to
adduce whatever further evidence they want to in the
context of the various claims raised in the LAR including the
claim for compensation for injurious affection and the claim
for value of the compound wall and market value of the land.
The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to complete the
enquiry and pass revised judgment at the earliest and at any
rate within four months of parties entering appearance
before that court pursuant to this judgment. Since the
Panchayat is also desirous of an order of remand we are not
inclined to impose any condition which will deprive the
claimant of the benefit of receiving interest under Section
28 of the Act. We are also not inclined to refuse refund of
L.A.A.1096/2007 & CO.56/2009
6
the court fee remitted on the memorandum of Cross
Objection. The entire court fee remitted on the Cross
Objection will be refunded to Sri.Ramesan Nambisan,
learned counsel for the cross objectors.
Appeal and Cross Objection are allowed. Parties will
appear before the reference court on 22.3.2010.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb