UNTAN KUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant, whose properties in Kidangoor village were acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/6/2004 is before this court complaining that the compensation redetermined by the Reference Court is inadequate. THE claimant's property was included in category 2 i.e. properties which do not abut the main road and was awarded value at the rate of Rs.5027/- per Are . Before the Reference Court, it was claimed that the property is eligible to be treated as property enjoying the direct frontage of the main road as other portions of the entire holding belonging to the claimant were enjoying frontage of the above road. Ext.A4 , which is the court award in an earlier reference pertaining to the acquisition earlier for the same purpose, was pressed into service.THE advocate in report Ext.C1 and more so in Ext.C1 sketch reported that the unacquired portions of the appellant's property were enjoying road frontage(that portion of the road which was constructed by utilising the land acquired earlier from the appellant). THE learned Subordinate Judge, however would take the view that as the acquired property was not abutting the road directly and was situated only on the rear side of the appellant's property, the acquired property cannot be treated on a par with the properties enjoying the road frontage.

(2.) WE feel that the learned Subordinate Judge has not noticed the principles laid down by this court in Sreedharan And Others v. State of Kerala (1967 KLT 1067) and Joseph Cyriac v. State of Kerala (2004 (3) KLT page 48). WE are of the view that the issue should be re- appreciated and decided by the learned Subordinate Judge keeping in mind the principles laid down in the above two decisions, which is to the effect that when the property under acquisition was enjoying road frontage through other properties of the claimant, the claimant's property is to be treated as property enjoying road frontage.