Ravi vs State of Kerala and The Legal Officer (Secretarial)

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The claimant is in appeal. Their property in Thiruvaniyoor village was acquired for the purpose of Kochi Refineries Ltd. pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 04/11/2000. The property was included in category No. 4 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 29,000/- per Are. Under the impugned judgment, the Reference Court evaluated the evidence and re-fixed the land value at Rs. 38,200/- per Are.

Heard Sri. T.A. Shaji, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Smt. Thushara James, the learned Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority and Smt. Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Government Pleader. We notice our own judgment in LAA.248/08 pertaining to same acquisition, but in respect of land included in category-3. Under that judgment we have re-fixed the value by granting an enhancement by 47% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Since there is a co-relation between the values of various categories of properties under acquisition and nobody has a contention that the ratio fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values of the various categories is wrong, we are of the view that relying on the judgment in LAA.248/08 itself the market value of the land under acquisition in this case can be re-fixed at Rs. 42,630/- per Are. It is accordingly re-fixed.

Another grievance then voiced by the claimant is that the court below did not award any value towards compensation for the building which existed on the property. We find that no cogent evidence was adduced by the claimant in support of his claim for more building value. At the same time, we notice that it was adopting PWD schedule of rates that the Land Acquisition Authority fixed compensation for the building. Since it is well known that adoption of PWD schedule of rates is not realistic, we are of the view that a further amount of Rs. 47,500/- more can be awarded to the appellant towards compensation for the building. We award that amount also to the appellant. The appeal is allowed as above. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, while drafting the decree, the Registry will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court vide order in C.M. Application No. 1745 of 2009 dt. 02/11/2009.