MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the issues raised by the claimants in both these cases are same, it will be convenient to dispose of both these cases by a common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant in both the cases is the same. His properties in Kidangoor village were acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 29/09/03 for the purpose of the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. THE properties were dry lands with rubber plants. THE Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.11,746/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the appellant relied on Exts.A1 to A3 documents. THEse three documents reflected much higher values. THE appellant took out a commission also. THE Commissioner reported that there is a distance of about four kilometres between the properties covered by these documents and the properties under acquisition. It was also reported that the Ettumanoor - Poonjar state high way which is the main thoroughfare in that area is situated at a still greater distance. THE court below did not place any reliance on Exts.A1 to A3. At the same time, the court below noticed on the basis of the evidence that the value reflected in the basis document relied on by the officer was not adequate for the acquired property. What the court below did was to re-fix the value of the land in LAR.96/05 corresponding to LAA.631/07 at Rs.18,000/- per Are. THE court below, however, did not award the same value in LAR.99/05 corresponding to LAA.630/07 notwithstanding the fact that the properties were lying contiguously as the one holding under the common ownership of the very same appellant. According to the court below as the properties in LAR.99/05 were lying still interior to that property, the value can only be Rs.16,000/- per Are. THErefore, for the properties in that case the court fixed value at Rs.16,000/- per Are. Even though the appellants had claimed for compensation for injurious affection of the remainder property and also for expenditure for construction of compound walls for fortifying the boundaries of the property which had become divided into two pieces, the learned Sub Judge did not award any compensation towards these counts. According to the court below, a bridge has been constructed over the canal and it was open to the claimant to use that bridge for accessing his two pieces of remainder land.

(3.) WE have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. WE have scanned the impugned judgments. WE do not find any infirmity in the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having discarded Exts.A1 to A3 and having resorted to guess work for fixing the market value. But we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was extremely miserly in re-fixing the market value. According to us, on the basis of whatever evidence that is available in the case, the market value of the property could have been re-fixed at Rs.23,000/- per Are. WE are inclined to award the same rate for the properties involved in both these cases. Both these properties were belonging to one and same person (the appellant) who was enjoying all the properties as common properties under him. The learned Sub Judge was not justified in awarding two different rates. WE allow both these appeals to the extent of re-fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.23,000/-. WE are not persuaded by the submission of Sri.Jose Thomas that the court below should have awarded the amount claimed by the appellant as compensation for injurious affection. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge in the context of the claim for injurious affection is substantially correct. But we feel that for the inconveniences which are being caused in the matter of enjoyment of the remainder properties, the appellant should be awarded Rs.25,000/- each in these two cases. WE award to the appellant Rs.25,000/- in each case towards compensation for injurious affection. WE repel all other contentions raised by the claimant. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation. However, we clarify that for the amounts awarded for injurious affection (Rs.25,000/- each) the appellant will be entitled only for the interest under Section 28 and not for the benefits under Section 23(2), 23(1A).