AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The respondents were served with notice in the context of application for condonation of delay. They did not resist the prayer for condoning the delay. At the time when delay was condoned, there was a tacit understanding that this Court will be following judgments of this Court in identical matters.
The appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Mullackal village acquired for the purpose of the appellant/Inland Waterways Authority of India. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value for dry lands at the rate of Rs. 11,386/- per Are and for wet lands at Rs. 74/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment re-fixed the value of lands under acquisition uniformly at Rs. 35,000/- per Are. For the building which existed on the property, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 2,99,288/-. The Reference Court, relying on the report submitted by an Advocate Commissioner re-fixed the total compensation payable for the building at Rs. 4,01,708/-.
In this appeal, the appellant challenges the adoption of a uniform rate for both the wet lands and dry lands. The appellant also challenges the enhancement of compensation for the building based on Commissioner''s Report.
We have heard the submissions of Sri V. Santharam, the learned Counsel for the appellant whose submissions were not resisted by anybody before us. Mr. Santharam drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A. 1020/05 which was in respect of acquisition of identical land in the same village for the same purpose. It is not disputed that the above judgment has attained finality. Under that judgment, the value of dry lands under acquisition was re-fixed at Rs. 34,158/- per Are. Similarly, the value of wet lands for which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded much higher value than the value awarded in the present case for wet lands this Court re-fixed the value at Rs. 1,500/- per Are. We are of the view that the decision taken in that judgment can be followed and the value of the dry lands under acquisition can be re-fixed at Rs. 34,158/- per Are and of the wet lands at Rs. 1,500/- per Are. It is ordered accordingly.
We find some merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the Commissioner''s Report which was not properly proved. At the same time, we notice that the Land Acquisition Authority got the building valued in accordance with P.W.D schedule of rates. It is a matter of knowledge that construction of building in accordance with P.W.D schedule of rates is not a practical proposition. This Court has been awarding 32% to 35% more than the value calculated on the basis of P.W.D. schedule of rates in several cases. On the basis of the same reasoning, we are of the view that respondents are entitled for enhanced compensation towards the building also. However, applying the above principle, we re-fix the total compensation receivable by the respondents for the building (inclusive of what is awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer) at Rs. 3,90,000/-. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
The claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment u/s 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.