STATE OF KERALA Vs. KRISHNA UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of 62 cents of land in Puthusseri Village of Palghat Taluk, belonging to the respondent claimant, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of widening the National Highway No. 47. The requisite notification under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the Gazette dated 19-4-1971. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 6-3-1972 as per which land value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 80/- per cent, (Rs. 9,476 93 per Hectare) and value of the buildings acquired was fixed at Rs. 52,228.40. The land acquired takes in a shop building with six shop rooms, part of a rice mill and its drying yard and a drying yard in front of a match factory. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the portion of the rice mill and the drying yards acquired. There was no compensation awarded for severance and injurious affection. In his objections, the claimant had prayed for acquisition of the entire buildings of the rice mill and the match factory. But the acquisition was confined to two office rooms and the main hall of the rice mill building and its drying yard in front. The drying yard in front of the match factory was acquired leaving the main building unacquired. On reference under S.20 of the Act, the lower court has enhanced land value to Rs. 200/- per cent, and has also granted enhanced compensation for the shop building acquired. Compensation for severance and injurious affection was granted with respect to the rice mill and the match factory. It is against this that the State has come up in appeal.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader has challenged the enhancement of land value from Rs. 80/- to Rs. 200/- per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed land value at Rs. 80/- per cent on the basis of Ext. A1 sale deed. The Land Acquisition Officer examined as Pw. 1 has admitted that Ext. A1 sale is in respect of a property situated in a different amsom about two kilometres away from the acquired property. Pw. 1 has also admitted that the acquired property is in a commercially important locality in the Village and is situated on the side of the National Highway. It is also admitted that the acquired land is fit for use as a building site. The court below has relied on Ext. B3 sale deed dated 16-5-1968 relating to two cents of land on the side of the main road about seven furlongs away from the acquired land sold at a price of Rs. 1,000/-. It has also relied on Ext. B4 judgment of the lower court in LAR. No. 178 of 1972 relating to another piece of land acquired for the purpose of National Highway. It was noticed that the property involved in Ext. B4 proceedings was not situated in a commercial locality. The value of land fixed was at the rate of Rs. 500/- per cent. Considering the importance of the locality and the value of land in Exts. B3 and B4, the court below has awarded compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 200/- per cent as claimed by the respondent. We find the land value fixed is not in any way excessive, and we confirm the decision of the court below fixing land value at Rs. 200/- per cent.

(3.) Objection is raised in regard to the value fixed for the shop building in the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the value of the shop building at Rs. 7,240.00. According to Pw. 1, the Land Acquisition Officer, the value of the building was fixed on the basis of the valuation arrived at by the P. W. D. Engineer. The P. W. D. Engineer is not examined in the case. There is also no material placed before the Court to consider the basis on which the P. W. D. Engineer is said to have valued the building. Under these circumstances, the court below was perfectly right in not accepting the valuation said to have been effected by the P. W. D. Engineer. The court below has valued the building on the basis of its rental income capitalised at 16 times. The rental income was found at Rs. 250/- per month. Two months rent was deducted towards the annual repairs and maintenance. The building was found to be in good condition, though constructed ten years prior to the acquisition, and depreciation was deducted at 5 percent of the present value of the building, and compensation was fixed at Rs. 38,000/-. According to the learned Government Pleader, valuation based on capitalisation of income cannot be accepted as a proper method for fixing the value of buildings and the only acceptable method is to value the materials used for the construction of the building as on the date of acquisition and to arrive at the present value by deducting depreciation depending on the age of the building. We are not able to accept the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that capitalisation of income can in no circumstance be a method of valuation of land with buildings. The decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Parukutty & Others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer. Kozhikode, ( 1973 KLT 573 ) relied on by the learned Government Pleader, does not lay down the proposition as urged by him. Isaac J. who wrote the leading judgment stated at page 575: