The assessment of compensation in land acquisition cases must consider the total impact on the property, including demolished structures.

JUDGMENT

The appellants are the claimants in LAR No.133 of 2008 on the files of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Muvattupuzha. They were the joint owners of 0.60 Ares of land in Survey No.92/6-7 of Koothattukulam Village comprising a two storied commercial building situated therein with plinth area of 650 sq. ft. and a built up area of 1300 sq. ft.. According to the appellants the property was lying in the heart of Koothattukulam town and had high commercial importance. The property was acquired for the purpose of widening of M.C. Road under the KSTP road widening project. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 14.03.2005. The District Collector fixed the value of all the properties in Koothattukulam town acquired for the purpose of widening of the MC road as Rs.1,15,300/- per Are.

2. When notice under Section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 15.02.2006 was issued, the 1^st appellant filed a statement of claim. It was pointed out in the statement that demolition of a part of the building would in reality bring down the whole building. It was also pointed out that the left over piece of land with an extent of 0.35 Ares will be rendered useless on account of the restrictions imposed by the Panchayat Building Rules. The 1^st appellant claimed market value of Rs.20 lakhs for the entire property.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of land and building separately. A sum of Rs.28,825/- was fixed as land value. For the building, an amount of Rs.86,867/- was fixed as compensation. Dissatisfied with the amounts fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, reference was sought. Thus the matter was considered by the learned Sub Judge, Muvattupuzha.

4. The learned Sub Judge refused to rely on the exemplars pointed out by the appellants. However, the learned Judge noted that the fair value of the land was fixed in the year 2010 as Rs.7,50,000/- per Are. As the acquisition was in the year 2005, the learned Sub Judge made a guess work on the basis of the fair value fixed in the year 2010 and held that the land value of the acquired property can be fixed as Rs.3 lakhs per Are. The learned Sub Judge also found that as only a small part of the land was left after acquisition, an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- can be granted towards injurious affection. The learned Sub Judge held that for the building, the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is sufficient and there was no evidence available to show the nature and character of the building during the period of acquisition. Thus the claimants were held entitled for Rs.46,175/- towards enhancement of land value and Rs.1,05,000/- towards injurious affection along with other statutory benefits including 30%

solatium.

5. This appeal was filed dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the Reference Court. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Sub Judge has not taken into account the description of the property in the Mahazar prepared by the authorities at the time of acquisition. He pointed out that in the Mahazar, the building has been described as a two storied concrete building. He referred to the report of the Advocate Commissioner to show that the building was entirely demolished though the acquisition was with respect to a part of the building. He, therefore, submitted that the entire building become useless and had to be demolished after the acquisition. He also pointed out that the observation of the learned Sub Judge that there is no evidence to show the nature and character of the building is incorrect as there is a brief description in the Mahazar. Regarding the land value fixed by the learned Sub Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Sub Judge ought to have fixed a higher value for the reas