Thresiamma and Others vs State of Kerala and The Manager, Fedral Bank Ltd.

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—All these appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Alangad village for the purpose of upgradation of National Highway-17 from Varapuzha to Cheriapally. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 23/08/04. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 87,576/- per Are. only. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties would re-fix the land value at Rs. 1,44,500/- per Are. To the Appellant in LAA. 1367/09, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded about Rs. 1,50,000/- as value for the building. The Reference Court would award further amount of roughly Rs. 51,000/- as additional building value. In all the appeals grounds are raised urging that the market value determined for the land is inadequate. In LAA. 1367/09 there is a ground that further value should be awarded for the building.

We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed before us by Sri. Biju Abraham the learned Counsel for the Appellants and Smt. Josephina, the learned Government Pleader. We are of the view that the issue regarding the market value of the land is covered in favour of the Appellants to some extent by judgment of this Court in LAA. 1101/09. Relying on that judgment, we allow all these appeals and re-fix market value of land under acquisition at Rs. 1,62,000/- per Are. In LAA. 1367/09, the evidence adduced by the claimants regarding building value was his own oral evidence. We do not find any evidence on the basis of which more enhancement can be granted for the building than what is granted already by the Reference Court.

The appeals will stand allowed only to the extent of re-fixing the land value at Rs. 1,62,000/- per Are. The Appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits also admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, while drafting the decrees, the Section will have due regard to the conditions, if any imposed by this Court while condoning the delay. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.