IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1088 of 2008()
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE.
... Petitioner
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
Vs
1. A.M.MUHAMMED, S/O. ABOOBACKER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :03/07/2008
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------------------
L.A.A.NO.1088 OF 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.
This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and decree
dated 28.11.2007 in L.A.R. No.194 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sub
Court, Kozhikode. The extent of land acquired is 3.9536 cents.
Acquisition is for the purpose of construction of Karuvanthuruthy-
Chaliyam bridge. Section 4(1) notification is dated 5.8.1996. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.8,846/- per cent.
This was enhanced and refixed at Rs.20,000/- per cent by the reference
court. This reference case was jointly tried along with eight other
reference cases and a common judgment was passed. According to the
claimant, the acquired property is situated in a fast developing area of
Feroke Panchayat in Kozhikode District. It is also pleaded that
commercial establishments, banks, Co-operative societies, Post Office,
schools Panchayat office, reading rooms and health centres are situated
near the acquired property. Apart from that, Higher Secondary School,
Police Station, telephone Exchange, Forest Office, Federal Bank, hospitals,
L.A.A.NO.1099/2008 2
tile factories, fisheries offices, E.S.I. Hospital, Sub Registrar’s Office etc.
are situated within 2 Kms. from the acquired property. The claimant also
contended that Feroke railway station, Karuvanthuruthi ferry, and
Beypore Fishing Harbour are situated within 1 1/2 Kms. from the acquired
property and that the acquired property is situated 8 Kms. away from
Calicut city. Considering the high potentiality of the acquired land, the
claimant claimed that the property would have fetched Rs.75,000/- per
cent. He also claimed value for improvements and claims under other
heads.
2. The claimant was examined as AW.1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were
marked on his side. Ext.X1 series are the commission report and sketch.
AW.1 had spoken about the importance of the locality and the potential
value of the property under acquisition. According to AW.1, the
properties including the property covered by L.A.R. No..194 of 2001 are
situated on the side of Kozhikode-Karuvanthuruthy road. He also spoke
about the nearness of the acquired land to various institutions and its
accessibility to some important roads. It is also pointed out that Feroke-
Beypore and Chaliyam towns are situated at a distance of 1.5 Kms. from
the acquired property. AW.1 also tendered evidence regarding the
location of the property and its nearness to many institutions including
L.A.A.NO.1099/2008 3
those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. AW.1 also stated that the
acquired land is situated at Karuvanthuruthi town which is a fast
developing area in Kozhikode. It is contended that the land value fixed
by the Land Acquisition Officer is low considering the importance of the
locality, the potentiality of the land and its proximity to the town. The
claimant also pointed out that the basis land is situated in an unimportant
interior area about 5 Kms. away from the acquired property whereas the
acquired property is situated in the heart of Karuvanthuruthi town. He also
spoke about other plus factors regarding the acquired property.
3. In support of the claim for enhanced compensation, the claimant
produced Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.X1 series are court exhibits. Ext.A1 is the
certified copy of the common judgment in L.A.R. No.121 of 2001 and
connected cases. The properties covered by Ext.A1 are also acquired for
the same purpose. Section 4(1) notification date in Ext.A1 is also the
same, that is, 5.8.1996. The evidence adduced would show that both the
lands are situated adjacently on both sides of Karuvanthuruthi river.
Ext.A2 is a sale deed executed on 19.10.1995. According to AW.1, the
property covered by Ext.A2 is situated 100 metres away from the
acquired property. The Advocate Commissioner who conducted site
inspection reported that the properties involved in Exts.A1 and A2 are
L.A.A.NO.1099/2008 4
situated 200 metres away from Karuvanthuruthi town in a remote area.
The Commissioner further reported that the acquired property is situated
within the limits of Karuvanthuruthi town having direct road access. The
Advocate Commissioner after conducting local enquiry assessed the land
value of the acquired property between Rs.40,000 to Rs.60,000/- per cent.
Since the centage value assessed by the Commissioner was not based on
any evidence, the court below rightly held that the report of the
Commissioner cannot be accepted as such. The court below also noticed
the fact that the respondents did not adduce any evidence in support of
their case that the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just
and reasonable. The court below on a comparison of the properties
concluded that the acquired property is far better than the properties
covered by Exts.A1 and A2.
4. After taking into consideration the value shown in Exts.A1 and
A2, the road facility and nearness of the acquired land to the town, the
reference court fixed Rs.20,000/- per cent as value of the acquired land.
At the same time, the court below held that in the absence of convincing
evidence, the claimant is not entitled to get enhanced rate of compensation
for structures, kuzhikoors, injurious affection or for severance. The
reference court fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent after
L.A.A.NO.1099/2008 5
taking into consideration all relevant aspects. We do not find any reason
to interfere with the determination of land value by the reference court.
The appeal is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. I.A.
No.2406 of 2008 is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
sp/
L.A.A.NO.1099/2008 6
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
L.A.A. NO. 1088/2008
JUDGMENT
3rd July, 2008