AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The claimant is the appellant. Her property (garden land) in Nijeezhoor village was acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 30/3/1999 for the purpose of construction of Muvattupuzha valley irrigation project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.8642/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the appellant placed reliance on Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R. No. 161/2002. Ext.A1 was the judgment pertaining to another LAR case relating to the same acquisition pursuant to the same notification and in respect of the property in the same village. A copy of Ext.A1 is placed before us. On a perusal of Ext.A1, we are convinced that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the same rate to the claimant in Ext.A1, as was given to the appellant herein. We find under Ext.A1 that the court enhanced the land value by 60% of Rs. 8642/- i.e. the land value was enhanced by Rs. 5185/- per Are. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to rely on Ext.A1 for the reason that the appellant did not produce the document on the basis of which Ext.A1 award was passed by the Reference Court. According to us, the approach of the learned Sub Judge was not correct. It was evident from Ext.A1 itself that the acquisition was for the same purpose and that Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the same rate to Ext.A1 claimant and to the appellant herein. We follow Ext.A1 and refix the market value of the land under acquisition at 60% above the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. This means that we award to the appellant Rs. 5185/- per Are as additional land value. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible u/s 23 (2), 23 (1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the refixed compensation.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the appellant has remitted full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum.