The General Secretary vs The State of Kerala and The Secretary

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The claimant, the Nair Service Society is in appeal. Their land in Vanchiyoor village together with a building thereon was acquired for the purpose of development of Vanrose-Oottukuzhy-Secretariat road. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 10/03/05. Land value was claimed at the rate of Rs. 15 lakhs per cent by the claimant. For the building, the claimant claimed Rs. 5 lakhs. The land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 3,03,604/- per Are. For the building he awarded Rs. 4,60,140/-. Before the Reference Court there was claim for enhancement in land value and also for award of structure value at Rs. 5 lakhs itself. The evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, oral evidence of AW1 and Exts.R1 to R4. The learned Subordinate Judge was not impressed by any of the documents produced by the Appellant. Finally by applying rule of thumb 35% increase was given on the land value and no increase was given on structure value.

In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging what is described as the inadequacy of the market value re-determined by the Reference Court. Significantly in the appeal, there is no claim for enhancement in structure value.

We have heard the submissions of Sri. P.G. Parameswara Pancker, the senior counsel for the Appellant and those of Smt. T.T. Josephina, the learned Government Pleader. Sri. Panicker submitted that the property in question was situated just opposite to Government Secretariat and in that way can be considered to be one of the most valuable properties in Thiruvananthapuram city. According to the learned senior counsel, the claim of Rs. 15 lakhs per cent is very modest. Smt. Josephina, the learned Government Pleader would draw our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.617/10, a copy of the above judgment was placed before us. It was argued by the learned Government Pleader that under that judgment this Court interfered with the re-fixation of land value at Rs. 28 lakhs per Are and allowed the appeal reducing the land value to Rs. 17 lakhs per Are for property acquired for the same purpose for which the land value had been granted at the rate of Rs. 2,73,243/- per Are. She submitted that the maximum that can be given is only proportionate increase based on the above judgment. The senior counsel Sri. Panicker re-iterated his submission that there is no comparison between the properties covered by L.A.A.617/10 and the present property.

We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick re-appraisal of the evidence. Even according to the Land Acquisition Officer, the properties under acquisition in this case was superior to the property covered by L.A.A.617/10. We find that the Appellant is entitled for a higher rate of enhancement than the rate of enhancement granted by this Court in L.A.A.617/10 in view of the locational advantages which were enjoyed by the Appellant''s property. We take into account the judgment in L.A.A.617/10 and the special advantages enjoyed by the property in the present case and re-fix the land value at Rs. 21 lakhs per Are. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The Appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Decree copy will be issued to the Appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted. We make it clear that this judgment will not be a precedent for other cases pertaining to acquisition of land for the purpose of development of Vanrose-Oottukuzhy-Secretariat road.