Compensation for land acquisition must reflect true value and construction assessments should consider practical impediments faced by claimants.

JUDGMENT

The claimants in L.A.R.No.36 of 2012 on the files of the Sub Court, Chengannur, have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment of this Court in L.A.App.No.124 of 2017 wherein a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.App.No.133 of 2017 and connected cases was followed and the land value was re-fixed at Rs.6,87,500/- per Are. The learned Senior Government Pleader also submitted that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants was in an identical appeal arising from the same acquisition. It is noticed that the properties involved are similar. Hence, following the judgment of the Division Bench dated 23.10.2024 in L.A.App.No.133 of 2017 and connected cases, the land value shall stand re-fixed in this case also at Rs.6,87,500/- per Are.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation granted for structures in the acquired property was inadequate. The building was valued at Rs.2,77,771.55. The Reference Court observed that though the claimants contended that the value of the structure was less, no material was placed on record to take a different view. The learned counsel pointed out that I.A.No.15 of 2013 was filed in the L.A.R. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to assess the structures in the property. Though an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, the structure was demolished, before inspection could be made. Thus the appellants were disabled from making an assessment and placing the same on record.

5. I have perused the Mahazar. In the Mahazar there is a detailed description of the structure. The residential building had five rooms, a kitchen, a store room and a toilet. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Another v. Sushama Kumari [2010 (2) KLT 972] and submitted that in the said case the Division bench observed that compensation cannot be fixed blindly relying on the valuation made by the Engineers of PWD. In the case at hand, the valuation by the authorities was accepted as such by the Reference Court. On perusal of the Mahazar, I am of the view that the value fixed and compensation granted for structures was inadequate. As the appellants were disabled from making a fresh assessment through the Advocate Commissioner, I am of the view that the compensation for the structures demolished can be slightly enhanced to render justice to the appellants.

The compensation for the structures shall stand re-fixed at Rs.4 lakhs. With the above modifications, the appeal is disposed of. It is made clear that the appellants are entitled for all the statutory benefits and proportionate costs.

Sd/-