SOUDHA PRABHA Vs. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAA. No. 34 of 2010 is preferred by the claimant and LAA. No. 442 of 2010 is preferred by the Government. The property under acquisition was in Chevayoor Village. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 9-12-1993. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 7480/- per cent corresponding to Rs. 18475/- per Are. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence which came on record would re- fix the value at Rs. 35,000/- per cent. In LAA. No. 34 of 2010 various grounds are raised by the claimant wherein she contends that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is grossly inadequate. The Government per contra in their appeal LAA. No. 442 of 2010 contend that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is excessive.

(2.) Sri. V.B. Unniraj, learned Counsel for the appellant claimant and Smt. R. Bindu, learned Govt. Pleader have raised arguments on the basis of the grounds raised in the respective memoranda of appeal. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have also kept in mind our own judgments in LAA. 774 of 2006 and LAA. Nos. 1096 and 1310 of 2009. We are of the view that on a better assessment of the evidence which came on record, the market value of the land under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 57,500/- per cent. It is so fixed.

(3.) The result of the above discussion is that LAA. No. 442 of 2010 will stand dismissed. LAA. No. 34 of 2010 will stand allowed to the extent of re-fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 57,500/- per cent. This means that for each cent of land acquired the claimant appellant will be entitled to enhanced value over what is awarded by the L.A. Court at Rs. 22,500/- per cent. It is needless to mention that on the total enhanced compensation to which the claimant appellant becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment she will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in the appeal.