K.T. PAUL S/O. THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD(SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), KARAPUZHA BANASURASAGAR IRRIGATION PROJECT KALPETTA)PIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimant in LAR No.105 of 1998 in which an extent of 29.15 Ares in Sy.No.517/6 and 1.50 Ares in Sy.No.517/15 came to be acquired as per Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 02.10.1994.

(2.) We are only concerned with the claim with reference to 29.15 Ares. In fact, earlier, the reference is answered only in regard to 1.50 Ares of land against which the claimant preferred an appeal as LAA No.544/12. This Court, while remitting the matter, specifically directed the Reference Court to consider the claim for enhanced compensation with reference to the property in Survey No.517/15, which is answered in the present reference by granting enhanced compensation from Rs. 790/- per cent to Rs. 2,500/-. The petitioner also had claimed for damages alleging that after acquisition, substantial damage had been caused to the adjacent building owned by the petitioner, which came to be rejected observing that such issues cannot be adjudicated in a reference under Section 18 of the LA Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Reference Court did not consider the evidence that had been adduced in the matter properly in so far as the claim for land value is concerned and also the claim for compensation. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader challenged the maintainability of the appeal itself inter alia contending that in respect of 1.5 Ares of land which was in Survey No.517/6, this Court in LAA No.544/12 did not interfere with the said award and that the said matter was not remitted back and as such the value of land which is adjacent to the present land has become final and therefore the claimant is not entitled to re-agitate the value of the land in the present proceedings. Further, it is contended that there is no evidence worth mentioning to fix the market value of the land and the award passed by the Reference Court itself is sufficient compensation and there is no reason to interfere with the said award. The learned Government Pleader also supported the view taken by the Reference Court in regard to the rejection of claim for compensation on other grounds.