AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—This appeal by the claimant pertains to acquisition of land in Vatakara village for the purpose of widening the National Highway from Kozhikode to Kannur. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 05/04/06. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs. 22,291/- per cent. There existed a building on the property for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 1,63,410/-. It was on Ext.A3 judgment and on Ext.C1 Commission Report that the claimant relied mostly for enhancement. Ext.A3 was produced as though it were the judgment in an other reference case relating to adjacent property acquired two years and four months earlier for which the court had re-fixed value at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per cent. However, the judgment actually produced as Ext.A3 was not a judgment in respect of acquisition of an adjacent property. The learned Subordinate Judge discarded Ext.A3 on the reason that the property is situated far away from the acquired property. The court below did not award any enhancement towards value of the building on the reason that the evidence was not sufficient to justify any enhancement in value of the building. Ultimately what the court below did was to grant some enhancement by applying the rule of thumb and refix value of land at Rs. 37,500/- per cent.
In this appeal various grounds have been raised urging that the land value be re-fixed at Rs. 75,000/- per cent and that at least a further amount of Rs. 50,000/- be awarded towards compensation for the building. Apart from raising grounds in the appeal, the appellant has filed I.A.2852/10 producing Annexure-1 judgment in LAR.18/06 on the files of Vatakara Sub Court. It is stated in the affidavit that it was Annexure-1 judgment which the appellant actually wanted to produce before the Reference Court in place of Ext.A3 which was produced. We have allowed the I.A. and received Annexure-1 judgment as evidence on the side of the appellant marking the same as Ext.A5.
Sri. B. Krishnan, the learned Counsel for the appellant addressed us in detail on the various grounds raised. He drew our attention to A5 and submitted that the value reflected in A5 may be granted giving additions at the rate of 15% per year, in which case according to him, there is justification for allowing the appeal in full. He submitted that even if the evidence adduced by the appellant for further enhancement of compensation for the building is unacceptable, the principle that PWD schedule of rates adopted by the Land Acquisition Authority is not realistic may be kept in mind and enhancement be given.
The submissions of Sri. Krishnan were opposed by Smt. Latha T. Thankappan. We have considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the impugned judgment and also Ext.A5 marked by us. We have also gone through the Commission Report. The Commission Report reveals that the property covered by Ext.A5 was situated near to the property under acquisition and was almost identical. According to us, Ext.A5 is a very relevant piece of evidence. Vatakara is a municipal town and can be treated as urban area for the purpose of making additions on account of the passage of time. According to us, additions should be made at the rate of at least 10% per year. Making additions in that way the value of Ext.A5 property as on the date of relevant Section 4(1) notification in this case will come to Rs. 60,000/- per cent. We are of the view that the appeal has to be allowed to the extent of re-fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 60,000/- per cent. Accordingly, we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 60,000/- per cent. As for the claim of the appellant for more compensation for the building, we are of the view that keeping in mind the principle that construction of buildings in accordance with PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic and realistic proposition, 30-35% increase can be given and making increase in that way it is possible for us to award the amount claimed in the appeal ie. Rs. 50,000/- as further compensation for the building. Accordingly, we award Rs. 50,000/- more to the appellant as further compensation for the building.
The appeal is allowed as above. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.