ISAC KOSHY, S/O. LATE T.G. KOSHY THAZHETHIL AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the claimant in LAR Nos.313/2007 and 368/2008 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The land was acquired for widening of road from Museum to Thampanoor-Overbridge. In LAR No.313/2007, the area acquired was 28 sq.metres of land. The property had a retaining wall having a length of 12 metres. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarded land value at Rs. 2,44,530/- per Are and the Sub court on the basis of the earlier judgment in LAA Nos.2450/08 and 262/09 enhanced the land value to Rs. 21,38,390/- per Are. In respect of the value of structures, no further enhancement was granted. In LAR No.368/2008, the extent of land involved in acquisition was 72 sq.metres wherein also similar land value has been granted by the LAO which was enhanced to Rs. 21,38,390/- per Are.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants had raised two contentions. One is regarding the land value. It is contended that in LAA No.771/12, which arises from LAR No.47/2008, this Court had fixed the land value at Rs. 29 lakhs per Are based on earlier judgment in LAA Nos.357/12 and 815/12 and 821/12. The said judgment is dated 6.3.2015. Perusal of the said judgment would show that, as per notification dated 30.9.2004, the LAO valued the land at Rs. 3,39,625/-. The Sub Court enhanced the land value to Rs. 28 lakhs per Are. It is also borne out from the said judgment that the lands acquired come within reach No.4 from Thampanoor to Over bridge. Admittedly, the land under acquisition in these cases are not within the reach between Thampanoor and Overbridge. Even the LAO had awarded a higher compensation for the said land though Section 4(1) notification in both the cases are almost on near dates. Therefore, as far as these cases are concerned, the matter is covered by the judgment in LAA Nos.2450/2008 and 269/09 decided on 14.2.2011, in respect of a land which is very near to the acquired land in these cases. Therefore, there is justification on the part of the Reference Court to have fixed the land value at the said rate and we do not think that any modification is required in the matter.

(3.) In LAA No.605/12, the appellant had a contention that though 12 metres of retaining wall was acquired and demolished, only an amount of Rs. 928/- was given. Learned Government Pleader submits that no evidence was adduced regarding the actual value though there is a claim for Rs. 25,000/- in that regard. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that oral evidence was adduced and claim was made for Rs. 25,000/- for the retaining wall and there was no cross examination with reference to the said claim.