STATE OF KERALA Vs. CHELLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from the same judgment passed in L.A.R. No. 131 of 1983. The judgment dated 18th December, 1987 in L.A.R. 131 of 1983 is a revised judgment passed pursuant to a remand order of this court in L.A. A. No. 353 of 1986. L.A.A. No. 76 of 1989 is filed by the State and L.A.A. No. 85 of 1989 is filed by claimants 1 and 2.

(2.) An extent of 2.6985 hectares of land in Sy. Nos. 170/1-4, 170/1-6, 7, 9, 12, 14 and 28 of Athiyanoor Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk was acquired for the purpose of starting a factory for the manufacture of Three Wheeler Autorikshaws. S.3(1) notification was published on 12-2-80. Advance possession of land was taken from claimants 1 and 2 on 31-3-80 and from other claimants on 15-4-80. A total amount of Rs. 5,71,558.68/- was awarded as compensation. For the purpose of valuation of the land, the property was divided into three belts. The value of the property abutting the highway was fixed at Rs. 1830/- per Are and the value of the property abutting the municipal road was fixed at Rs. 1545/- per Are. The portion of the property which had no access to the road was valued at Rs. 1,450/- per Are. All the claimants received compensation amount under protest and sought for enhancement of the same. The matter was referred to Sub Court under S.20 of the Land Acquisition Act By the impugned judgment, the land acquisition court revised the land value for the first category and fixed it at Rs. 7350/- per Are and for the second category the land value was fixed at Rs. 5450/- per Are and for the third category the land value was fixed at Rs.4287/- per Are. Thus, for the first category there was enhancement of Rs. 5520/- per Are, for the second category there was an enhancement of Rs. 3926/-. The property of the appellants in L.A.R. 85 of 1989 fell within the first and second category. So, we are mainly concerned with the enhancement allowed for the properties comprised in category Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader contended that the enhancement allowed by the court below is highly excessive and the court relied on the documents which came into existence after 4(1) notification. It is also contended that the court below erred in relying on the documents relating to sale of smaller extent of property for fixing the land value of the acquired property which is having an extent more than 5 acres. It is argued that the court should not have accepted the commission report.