STATE OF KERALA Vs. KURIAN S/O. ABARAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the land acquired in both these cases are situated in the nearby vicinity and since acquisition was for the very same purpose through the same notification, we have considered both these appeals together and dispose through this common judgment.

(2.) L.A.A No.201/2015 arise out of the judgment in L.A.R.No.98/2012 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvalla. L.A.A.No.236/2016 arises out of the judgment in L.A.R. No.99/2012 of the same court. In L.A.R.No.98/2012, an extent of 15.95 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.107/29 of Niranam Village was acquired for the purpose L.A.A.Nos. 201 of 2015 and 236 of 2016 of construction of 'Kadapra-Viyyapuram' Road in Thiruvalla Taluk. The last date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was on 8.12.2010. In LAR No.99/2012 an extent of 4.80 Ares comprised in Survey No.99/6 and 4.40 Ares comprised in Survey No. 107/6, totalling an extent of 9.20 Ares were acquired for the very same purpose through the very same notification. Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 31,577/- per Are in L.A.R No.98/2012 and Rs. 26,314/- per Are in L.A.R No. 99/2012. The property in L.A.R No.98/2012 was included in the first category described as land having frontage to Panchayath road, whereas the land in L.A.R No.99/2012 was included in the second category described as property having no road frontage. Both the cases were referred for determination of enhanced compensation, under Section 18 of the Act.

(3.) In L.A.R No. 98/2012 the claimants have adduced evidence of Ext. C1 Commission report and Ext. C1(a) plan prepared by the Surveyor. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No. 334/2009 of SRO, Kadapra. The claimant as well as the Advocate Commissioner were examined before the court as AW1 and AW2, respectively. The court below while considering the evidence on record found that, Ext.A1 is situated in the same village and had PWD road frontage. But without expressing any opinion regarding comparability of the land covered under Ext.A1 with that of the acquired property, the learned Sub Judge observed that, no sufficient amount has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and considering the larger extent of the property acquired from the claimant, the claimant is entitled to get enhancement in the land value. Hence the reference was answered refixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 3 lakh per Are, purely on a guess work. The State is challenging the judgment as unsustainable.