GENERAL MANAGER KSIDC Vs. VAYALAMBRON KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are filed by the requisitioning authority who were respondent No. 2 before the reference court. The appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Kuthuparamba village situated within the limits of Kuthuparambu Municipal Town. The relevant notification under Section 4(1) was dated 30.1.2001. The acquisition was for the purpose of widening Kuthuparamba - Valliyavelicham road leading to the appellants Industrial Growth Centre at Valiyavelicham. The Land Acquisition Officer had aw aided land value at the rate of Rs. 38997- per cent on the basis of Ext.B1 basis document. The claimants had claimed a higher land value. They had claimed compensation on various other counts including injurious affection of their remainder properties.

(2.) The evidence before the reference court consisted of the oral testimony of A.W. 1, claimant in one of the six cases covered by the common judgment impugned in these appeals. Apart from that, there was Exl.X1 Commissioner s report prepared by Advocate Mr. C.R. Rajendran who had conducted a local inspection pursuant to an application submitted by the claimants. On the side of the appellant and the Government, the solitary item of evidence was Ext.B1, certified copy of the basis document. In Ext.X1, the Advocate Commissioner apart from reporting that the acquired properties had nearness to important institutions and establishments within the Municipal Town had suggested that the acquired properties will fetch market value of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the Advocate Commissioner s recommendations regarding the market value of the land. It appears that the learned Judge was impressed by the oral evidence of A.W.1 and the Commissioner s report regarding the locational advantages which the acquired properties were enjoying including the obvious circumstance that all the acquired properties were already having road frontage. It seems to me on a reading of the judgment that though the learned Judge did not award any compensation towards the claims raised by the claimants on account of alleged injurious affection etc., those claims were also kept in mind by the learned Subordinate Judge who ultimately concluded that the market value of the property as on the relevant date is Rs. 10,000/- per cent.

(3.) I have heard the submissions of Adv. Mr. D. Krishnankutty Pillai and Adv. Mr. Sheejo Chacko, learned Counsel for the appellants, Adv. Mr. C.R Peethambaran, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and Smt. Latha T. Thankappan, Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the State.