IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 827 of 2005()
1. THERATH KAIPRATH YESODA,
... Petitioner
2. THERATH KAIPRATH VASANTHY,
3. THERATH KAIPRATH RAJAN,
4. THERATH KAIPRATH RAMANI,
5. THERATH KAIPRATH PRIYADHATHAN,
6. PRASANNA BALAGOPAL, D/O.O.K.RAGHAVAN,
Vs
1. SPL. TAHSILDAR,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VATHSALAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
L.A.A. Nos.827/05, 1382/05, 116/06 & 939/07
----------------------------------------------
Dated 26th June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Kurian Joseph, J.
C.M.Appln. Nos.1882/05 in LAA.1382/05 & 1078/07 in LAA
939/07 : Delay condoned.
The State is aggrieved by the fixation of land value by
the reference court, Sub Court, Thalassery. The acquisition is for
the purpose of doubling of railway line and expansion of Kannur
Town Railway Station. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land
value approximately at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per cent. The
reference court granted enhancement at the rate of 75%.
2. According to the claimants in LAR 35/02(LAA
827/05), they are aggrieved since there is no proper fixation of
land value. There is also a contention that the fixation of the
market value for the structures is not proper. As far as the
contention regarding structures is concerned, the reference court
has observed that the claimants had not had any grievance
before the Land Acquisition Officer. But the fact remains that the
claimants have taken up the issue before the reference court. It
LAA NO.827/05 & connected cases 2
is now settled law that the claimants need raise their contentions
and claims only before the reference court and the court is called
upon to answer the reference adverting to the claims made by the
claimants before the reference court. As far as value of structures
is concerned, the valuation made by the Land Acquisition Officer
is based on the PWD rate and in several cases, this court has
granted 30% enhancement taking into consideration the market
value of the materials and such enhancement has been sustained
by the apex court also. As far as the land value is concerned, we
find that there is some substance in the contention taken by the
claimants that the property along with the building is situated in
the heart of the town and it is not as if a remotely situated
property is taken for the purpose of doubling a railway line. The
purpose of acquisition is not merely doubling of railway line, but
expansion of Kannur Railway Station also. This crucial difference
in the case of the claimants in LAR 35/02 is not taken into
consideration by the reference court. As far as the fixation
already made to the tune of Rs.28,000/- per cent, we find that the
court is justified in granting such an enhancement in view of the
finding of the fact that the acquired properties are situated in an
LAA NO.827/05 & connected cases 3
important area of Kannur Town, very near to the Railway Station
and Bus stand. It is seen from the report of the Advocate
Commissioner that the distance of the acquired property is only
30 meters from the Municipal Bus stand and 100 meters from the
Railway Station. The evidence adduced in the case indicated land
value at the rate of Re.1 lakh per cent, but the reference court has
rightly found that they are not similar and similarly situated, in
view of the difference in the respective advantages to the
property. Even according to the reference court, the property
covered by Ext.A1 series is in the vicinity of the acquired land.
Therefore, granting 75% enhancement cannot be said to be
excessive. Therefore, we dismiss the the appeals, LAA 116/06
and 939/07.
3. As far as LAA 827/05 filed by the claimants (the
appellants/claimants in LAA 827/05 have limited their claim to
Rs.50,000/- per cent) and LAA 1382/05 filed by the State are
concerned, the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside
and the matter is remitted to the reference court for fresh
consideration, in the light of the observations contained in this
judgment. The parties shall appear before the reference court on
LAA NO.827/05 & connected cases 4
4.8.2008 and the reference shall be answered within another
three months. In view of the remand as above, the
appellants/claimants in LAA 827/05 shall be entitled to refund of
the court fee. The stay petitions in the appeals are dismissed.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.
tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ
———————————————-
L.A.A. Nos.827/05, 1382/05, 116/06 & 939/07
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 26th June, 2008.