D.SUJATHA Vs. STATEOF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN extent of 2.80 Ares of wet land belongs to the appellants was acquired through Section 4(1) notification dated 18.07.2009 of the Land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of doubling the Chengannur - Chingavanam railway track. As per award No.20/2011 dated 15.01.2011, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation by considering the land value at 2,966/ - per Are. Dissatisfied with the said land value, the appellants objected it, which resulted in the reference. The court below fixed the land value at 6,000/ - per Are which, according to the appellants, is too low and hence, the appeal.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants Smt.Asha Elizabeth Mathew, learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

(3.) IT seems that the court below has made detailed discussion with regard to the acceptability of Exts.A1 and A2 and found that the land value can be fixed by considering the land value in respect of the land covered by Exts.A1 and A2. In Ext.A1, the land value s 30,928/ - per Are and in Ext.A2, the land value covered by it is 30,864/ - per Are. The court below has, in fact, found that the acquired land is more important than the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2. It has been found by the court below that the acquired land has more road frontage than the land covered by Exts.A1 and A2 and further that, many public institutions are situated in the nearest vicinity of the acquired property than the property covered by Exts.A1 and A2. The court below has further found that the land value of the acquired land could be fixed by considering Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds. After that, it seems that the court below has limited the claim of the appellants relating to land value to 6,000/ - per Are for reasons best known to the court below only. No doubt, the fixing of land value by limiting it to 6,000/ - per Are in respect of the acquired land has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice. Considering the importance of the acquired property, and when the court below has found that Exts.A1 and A2 could be relied on for fixing the land value, this Court is of the view that the land value has to be fixed at the rate of 30,000/ - per Are in respect of the acquired land also. Therefore, the impugned judgment requires modification to that effect. In the result, the appeal is allowed and land value of the acquired land is fixed at 30,000/ - per Are. Of course, the appellants are entitled to the statutory benefits like solatium, interest, etc. While computing interest on the enhanced compensation, a period of 93 days, being the delay in filing the appeal, has to be excluded.