AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The claimants are the appellants. Their land in Peringala village situated within the area of Kayamkulam Municipality was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 6.10.2004. There was a building situated on the property. For the land, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 49,050/- per Are. For the building the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 63,232/-. Before the reference court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, Ext.C1 Commissioner''s report and the oral evidence of Aws.1 to 3. AW3 was the Retired PWD Executive Engineer who authored Ext.A3 revised estimate. Under Ext.A3, the value of the building was assessed by AW3 at Rs. 1,13,411/-. The court below did not completely accept Ext. A3 or the oral evidence given by AW3. However, to the great extent, Ext. A3 and AW3''s evidence was accepted and an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards building value. According to the appellants, this is inadequate. Ext. A3 should have been accepted in full. Regarding land value, the court below did not place reliance on any particular document. However, keeping in mind the values reflected in Ext.A1 sale deed, the learned sub judge would re-fix the land value at Rs.75,000/- per Are.
In this appeal, the ground raised is that the land value as well as the building value re-fixed by the reference court is inadequate.
We have heard the submissions of Mr.George Varghese and those of Mr.Cherian, the learned standing counsel for Railways. All the submissions of the standing counsel for the Railways was supported by the learned Senior Government Pleader.
Our attention was drawn by the Learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the Railways to various judgments of this Court including the judgments in LAA Nos. 1312/2010, 691/2011 and 661 of 2011. We find that all these judgments pertain to acquisition of comparable lands in the same Municipality for the same purpose pursuant to Section 4(1) notification. Land value fixed under the judgments varies - i.e. Rs. 90,000/-, Rs. 89,000/- and Rs. 89,500/- respectively.
The request of Mr.George Varghese as regards the land value was that atleast Rs.90,000/- per Are be awarded. As regards the building value, his request was that Ext.A3 be accepted in full.
Per contra, the submission of the learned standing counsel for the Railways was that though it is true that this Court has awarded up to Rs.90,000/- per Are, the land acquisition officer had awarded much higher value for lands involved in that case and also in other cases the LAO has awarded land value at the rate of Rs.89,000/- and Rs.87,500/- respectively.
We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the judgments of this Court to which our attention was drawn by the counsel on either side. On a quick appraisal of the evidence, we feel that the compensation presently awarded by the learned subordinate judge is inadequate. Keeping in mind the judgments passed by this Court to which our attention was drawn by the counsel in their submissions and also other judgments pertaining to land acquisition in Kayamkulam. More or less at the same time, we re-fix the value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 87,500/- per Are. We find that there is some inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the learned sub judge towards building also. We award Rs.7500/- more towards building value. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled of all statutory benefits on the total re-fixed compensation. However, while the decree is drafted, the section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court while condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.