STATE OF KERALA Vs. P M KURUVILLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of 3.470 cents equivalent to 1.33 ares, out of 33.872 cents of land owned by the respondent, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of South Over bridge, Ernakulam, in pursuance of a notification under S.3(1) of the Kerala Laud Acquisition Act dated 21st February 1967. The respondent had before the Land Acquisition Officer claimed compensation under various heads. However, we are, in this appeal, concerned only with claims under three heads viz. (1) land value; (2) value for the buildings and compound walls; and (3) compensation for injurious affection.

(2.) The claim before the Land Acquisition Officer by the respondent in respect of land value was at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a sum of Rs 5,500 per are which would be equivalent to Rs. 2,200 per cent. On reference, this compensation has been raised to Rs. 3,000 per cent as against the claim for Rs. 3,500 per cent before that court. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that the enhancement was unwarranted, and it was legally wrong to have placed reliance on the award made in another case for fixing the land value in the present case. Various items of property were acquired for the same purpose, and in the previous reference cases, for the sake of convenience, in regard to fixation of market value, a division was made between the land acquired, lying to the east of the Railway line, on the one hand, and that lying on the western side of the Railway line on the other, Compensation was fixed at Rs. 3,000 for the land lying to the east of the Railway line, and Rs. 5,000 per cent in respect of the land lying to the west of the Railway line. In view of the importance and potential value of the land concerned, and in view of the reasonable and rational basis on which the general classification of the lands lying to the east and the lands lying to the west of the Railway line has been made by the court for the purpose of fixation of market value of lands in the connected cases of reference, previously decided; we do not think that there is any justification for interference with the decision of the court below in so far as it relates to the enhancement of the land value, from Rs. 2,200 to Rs. 3,000 per cent, to which rate the respondent in his oral evidence as PW 5 had restricted his claim for land value in view of the rate in regard to land value adopted by the court in references of connected cases, decided earlier.

(3.) We now turn to the claim for enhancement of value for the building and the compound wall allowed by the reference court to which objection has been taken by the State. A sum of Rs. 39,900 in all was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the basis of the Reports Exts. C-1 and C-2 filed by the Commissioner, PW. 7, the value of the buildings and the compound wall has been raised to Rs. 52,578.38 by the reference court. Ext. D-2 is the valuation statement prepared by RW. 1, the Junior Engineer, in respect of the buildings and the compound wall, and it has been verified by RW. 2, the Assistant Engineer, and countersigned by RW. 3 the Executive Engineer. For determining the quantum of material and labour used for the construction of the building and the compound wall, the Commissioner PW. 7, also accepted and relied on the date disclosed by Ext. D-2 valuation statement. The valuation by the Commissioner, in Ext C-2 Report, nevertheless came to Rs. 52,578.38 marking an enhancement by Rs. 12,678.38 over the value fixed by RWs. 1 and 2 in Ext D 2 statement, accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer as a result of the Commissioner departing from the criterion adopted by RWs. 1 and 2 on two points: (1) cost of labour, and (2) rate of depreciation. RWs. 1 and 2 had, for the purpose of ascertaining the cost of construction of the buildings and compound wall, adopted the PWD. schedule rate of wages for the District of Ernakulam. The Commissioner found that the wage level in the city of Ernakulam is definitely higher than that of the rural area in the District, and therefore the PWD. wage schedule for the Ernakulam District would not reflect the true rate of labour charges in the Ernakulam city, in which the building valued by him was situated. Bearing this aspect in mind the Commissioner adopted a rate which according to him reflected the correct rate in Ernakulam city, for the purpose of fixing the cost of labour incurred. As for the depreciation, RWs. 1 and 2 had allowed it at 2 per cent per annum, which the Commissioner found to be excessive and fixed it at 1 per cent per annum, and in view of the decision in Mytheen Kunju Abdulrahiman Kunju v. State 1954 KLT 798 the reference court came to the conclusion that there was no reason why the valuation given by the Commissioner should not be preferred to that of RWs. 1 and 2. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in regard to cost of labour and depreciation the court below was justified in adopting the rate found in the Commissioner's Report in preference to the rate allowed by RWs. 1 and 2 and this would mean that there is no scopes for interference by us with the decision of the reference court in so far as it relates to the award of compensation decreed by that court to the buildings and compound wall