STATE OF KERALA Vs. MOIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government is the appellant in LAA No. 538 of 2010 and the memorandum of cross objections is filed by the claimant. The property under acquisition was in Kuthuparamba Village and the acquisition was for the purpose of up-gradation of Thalassery-Valavupara Road pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification published on 28/01/2005. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 38,000/- per Cent. The Reference Court under the impugned award re-fixed the land value at Rs. 1 lakh per Cent. Apart from that the Reference Court awarded further compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for "loss of earnings/loss of business". The Government contends that the market value re-fixed by the Reference Court is excessive. The Government also contends that the award of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings and business is unauthorised. In the memorandum of cross objections filed by the claimant, it is urged that the land value ought to have been re-fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 3 lakhs per Cent. We have heard the submissions of learned senior Government Pleader and Shri P. U. Shailajan, Learned Counsel for the cross objector claimant. Our attention was drawn by Sri. Shailajan to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in L.A.A No. 1049 of 2009. Learned Counsel submitted that under the judgment in L.A.A No. 1049 of 2009, this Court has re-fixed the value of the property under acquisition in that case at Rs. 75,000/-. It is argued that by that judgment, this Court has given indirect approval to the award of Rs. 1 lakh per Cent in the present appeal in view of the fact that the present property is superior. It was submitted that the land under acquisition in this appeal is situated only 20 metres away from Kuthuparamba bus stand, unlike the land involved in LA. A No. 1049 of 2009 which is situated 200 metres away from the bus stand. The Learned Counsel submitted that the property was situated almost adjacent to the bus stand and therefore, there is justification for awarding at least Rs. 1,50,000/- per Cent.

(2.) The learned Senior Government Pleader, per contra submitted that it is not correct to say that this Court in judgment in L.A.A No. 1049 of 2009 has approved the award of Rs. 1 lakh per Cent to the property involved in this appeal. This appeal was never considered by this Court along with L.A. A No. 1049 of 2009. The maximum increase over that amount which can be awarded for the property involved in this appeal is Rs. 10,000/- per Cent. The learned senior Government Pleader would very strongly assail the award of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings and business. The learned senior Government Pleader referred to Section 23 (1) Clause fifthly and submitted that what is contemplated under that clause is only the reasonable expenses incidental to the shifting of the residence or place of business. Towards shifting charges the award of Rs. 50,000/- is quite excessive.

(3.) We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have taken into account the judgment of this Court in LAA. No. 1049 of 2009. We are unable to accept the submission of Sri. P.U. Shailajan that by the judgment in LAA. No. 1049 of 2009 this Court has given indirect approval to the award which is impugned in this case. At the same time we keep in mind the fact that this Court awarded Rs. 75,000/- per cent to the property covered by the judgment in LAA No. 1049 of 2009 and the land under acquisition in this case is nearer to the Municipal Bus Stand and other important institutions than the property covered by LAA. No. 1049 of 2009. According to us, there is justification for awarding more land value for the property in this case than the property covered by LAA. No. 1049 of 2009. We re-fix the value of the land under acquisition in this case at Rs. 75,000/- per cent.