SIVARAMA PILLAI PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals preferred by the claimant who complains that the land acquisition reference court did not award him adequate compensation involve questions pertaining to the interpretation, scope and ambit of clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The property under acquisition was a small extent of land together with portion of a larger building belonging to the appellant. Grounds raised in these appeals pertain to the market value of the land as well as the compensation to be awarded for the building which was acquired (the building portion which stood on the land under acquisition) and towards the building portion which remains under the ownership of the appellant even after the acquisition.

(2.) Heard Sri. Sathish Ninan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. C.R. Shyamkumar, learned senior Government Pleader for the Government in detail. It was fairly conceded at the Bar that the issue regarding the correct market value fixed for the land under acquisition is already decided by this Court by judgment dated 26-1-2012 in LAA. No. 35 of 2012. We notice that under that judgment the value of identical land was re-fixed by us at the rate of Rs. 1,85,300/- per Are. In view of the finality concededly obtained by that judgment to the issue of land value we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition in these appeals from Rs. 1,53,334/- per Are to Rs. 1,85,300/- per Are.

(3.) We find that under the impugned award the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the compensation for the building portion involved in LAR. 37 of 2009 corresponding to LAA. No. 35 of 2012 at Rs. 2,60,400/- thus awarding an enhanced building value of Rs. 1,32,381/-. We also find that in LAR. No. 39 of 2009 corresponding to LAA. No. 73 of 2012 the learned Subordinate Judge similarly re-fixed the market value of the building portion at Rs. 3,39,600/- thus awarding an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,72,638/- for the above building portion. The re-fixations of the market value of the building under acquisition has been done by the learned Subordinate Judge appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, particularly Ext. C1 commissioner's report and Ext. C1(a) report submitted by an expert Engineer who assisted the Commissioner. We find that the above re-fixations which the learned Sub-ordinate Judge made on the recommendations in Exts. C1 and C1(a) have been so made on the basis of the principles laid down by this Court in Bhavani Ramalakshmy v. State of Kerala,1992 KerLT 581 , and keeping in mind the principles laid down in relevant precedents such as Harichand v. Secretary of State, 1939 AIR(PC) 235, Secretary of State v. Varain Khanna, 1942 AIR(PC) 35, State of Kerala v. C.L. Palu, 1979 3 SCC 780 and Abdulrahiman Kunju v. State,1954 KerLT 798(T.C. High Court). In the argument also Sri. Sathish Ninan, learned counsel for the appellant had to concede before us that there cannot be any legitimate grievance regarding the sufficiency of the compensation re-fixed by the reference court towards the building portions which were actually acquired.