2024/KER/43658 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946 LA.APP. NO. 779 OF 2012 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.02.2012 IN LAR NO.72 OF 2009 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: HASSANKUNJU RAWTHER S/O.MYTHEENKUNJU RAWTHER, NAZIA MANZIL, KARAPPUZHA,KOTTAYAM.

BY ADV SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM

686 001.

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) (N.H)

CHANGANACHERRY 686 101.

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. (K.S.T.P)

MOOVATTUPUZHA 686 661.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT SYLAJA SL THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 10.06.2024, THE COURT ON 20.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

G.GIRISH, J. ---------------

L.A.App.No.779 of 2012 ------------------------------

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2024 --------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T

The judgment dated 16.02.2012 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam answering the reference in L.A.R.No.72/2009 is under challenge in this appeal.

2. An extent of 0.28 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.58/2-1 of Kottayam Village which belonged to the appellant herein was acquired for the upgradation of Moovattupuzha-Ettumanoor-Chengannur State Highway on the basis of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 09.12.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.2,59,460/- per Are and awarded a total amount of Rs.1,30,105/- to the appellant which was inclusive of an amount of Rs.5,977/- as the value of structure situated in the acquired property. Upon reference, the learned Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam allowed enhancement of land value to the tune of Rs.14,529.76/-, but declined to award any enhancement for the value of the structure which was a building situated in the acquired property, partially demolished in connection with the acquisition. The learned Sub Judge observed in the impugned judgment that Ext.A4 photograph produced by the appellant indicated that the above structures were projecting into the main road and causing obstruction to the public, and it would reveal that the construction is made in violation of Municipal Rules. It was further observed in the impugned judgment that the State has given compensation for the demolished structures under the existing PWD rates. It is upon the above reasoning that the learned Sub Judge declined to grant enhancement of compensation under the head ‘value of structure’. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Sub Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

4. Before the trial court, the appellant claimed enhancement of land value on the basis of Exts.A5 to A7 sale deeds contending that the landed property sold thereunder were identical to the acquired property, and hence entitled for a value equivalent to the same amount as that of the sale consideration mentioned in those documents. The learned Sub Judge considered all the above three sale deeds and declined to accept the said documents for fixing the land value of the acquired property for the reasons dealt with separately in the impugned judgment. As regards Ext.A5 sale deed, it was rightly observed by the learned Sub Judge that the property sold thereunder was an extent of 26 sq.mtrs of land with a multi-storied building with electric connection, water connection etc, and that there was no separate valuation given in that document for the building and land. The above reason stated by the learned Sub Judge for not accepting Ext.A5 sale deed for fixing the land value, is well founded.

5. In respect of Exts.A6 and A7 sale deeds, the trial court observed that the said documents cannot be relied on since it were executed after the publication of the notificat