P.T.VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in L.A.R.No.212/2008 before the Sub Judge, Mavelikkara, is the appellant herein. The property belonging to the appellant was acquired as per a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 27.12.2004. There was a building and a compound wall for the property. As a result of the acquisition, the remaining portion of the property viz.,

(2.) 63 ares, became without any road access and consequently, its value has been injuriously affected. The land acquisition officer fixed Rs. 24,244.00 per are as the land value and Rs. 3,02,932.00 as the value of the building and compound wall. The land acquisition officer did not grant any compensation for injurious affection. 2. The reference court increased the land value as Rs. 39,244.00 per are and increased the value of the building to Rs. 4,27,932.00. For injurious affection, the reference court granted Rs. 25,000.00 as compensation. Dissatisfied with the compensation fixed on all three counts, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) SECONDLY , the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation for the building arrived at by the reference court is also inadequate. It is pointed out that in Ext.A2 valuation of the engineer of the Railways, the schedule of rates was taken based on PWD rates and PWD data book. The reference court found that the market rate should have been taken going by the decision of the Supreme Court on the subject. The learned counsel points out that based on the very same data furnished in Ext.A2 valuation of the Railways engineer, the valuer engaged by the appellant has recalculated the value of the building based on market rates by Ext.A3 valuation report, which should have been adopted by the reference court for fixing compensation for the building and the compound wall. It is submitted that in Ext.A3, the valuer engaged by the appellant has valued the property at Rs. 6,11,180.00, whereas in the valuation by the engineer of the Railways, the value was fixed as Rs. 3,02,932.00. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the minimum the reference court should have done is to give appropriate deprecation for the passage of time and cost of repairs, instead of making an estimate and increasing the value of the building by Rs. 1,20,000.00 and value of the compound wall by Rs. 5000.00. Regarding the compensation for injurious affection, the learned counsel would argue that as a result of the acquisition, the remaining property extending 2.63 ares became totally useless and, therefore, appropriate compensation for injurious affection of at least Rs. 50,000.00 should have been given.