K.J.CHERIAN v. STATE OF KERALA

::3::L.A.A.No.2122 Of 2008properties involved in L.A.R.No.77 & 132 of 1996. The LandAcquisition Officer awarded Rs.30,328/- per Are for the propertiesinvolved in the present acquisition. In the said circumstances,there is every reason to believe that the properties underacquisition is more important than the properties involved inL.A.R.Nos.77 & 132 of 1996. The reference court re-fixed theland value in the two reference cases and both cases aredisposed of by a common judgment. The reference court fixedthe land value @ Rs.74,429/- per are. The claimants in thepresent case claimed the very same value for the property underacquisition on the basis of the common judgment in L.A.R.Nos.77& 132 of 1996. The reference court rejected Ext.A3 judgment.No sound reasons are stated for not fixing the land value in thiscase in parity with Ext.A3 judgment. Though the claimants werealso entitled to the same land value, if not more, the referencecourt failed to rely on Ext.A3 for the purpose of re-fixing the landvalue instead considered the commercial importance of theproperty and granted 50% enhancement. 4.The State of Kerala filed appeal against Ext.A3judgment. The learned counsel for the claimants produced copy ::4::L.A.A.No.2122 Of 2008of the judgment dated 3.8.2006 in L.A.A.No.627/2005. Theappeal filed against Ext.A3 judgment was dismissed by thisCourt. Thus, the land value fixed in Ext.A3 has become final.The fact that the acquired property is similar and similarlysituated and fetches the same value, if not more, cannot bedisputed. If that be the position, the claimants are entitled to thesame land value as fixed in L.A.R.Nos.77 & 132 of 1996. Theclaimants also claimed compensation for the compound wall theyhad constructed after the acquisition to protect the remainingportion of their land. The 1st claimant was examined as AW1. Hetestified before the court that because of the acquisition the thenexisted compound wall happened to be demolished and the landleft over the acquisition had to be protected by constructingcompound wall for which he had spent Rs.40,000/-. Theclaimants adduced evidence in support of their claim forcompensation under this head. The claimants relied on theevidence of AWs1 -5 and Exts.A4 -A6. The case of the claimantsis that they have constructed compound wall as shown in Ext.A1site plan in accordance with Ext.A4 estimate and that theclaimant had spent Rs.35,000/- mentioned in Exts.A5 & A6. ::5::L.A.A.No.2122 Of 2008Exts.A5 & A6 are receipts for acceptance of payment by PW3 forthe construction work he has undertaken. The claimant alsoproduced a certificate dated 19.4.2008 issued by the VillageOfficer, before this Court stating that the property left out afteracquisition is in R.S.No.92/10 and that the claimants did not ownany land in any other sub divisions of survey number 92. Thesaid certificate is marked as Ext.A7. The oral and documentaryevidence adduced by the claimant would prove that he hadconstructed the compound wall to protect his rest of the landafter acquisition. Reliance can be placed on the oral evidence ofAW1 to AW3 and Exts.A4-A6 to find that the claimants areentitled to compensation under this head. The reference court ona technical plea rejected the claim stating that the sub divisionnumber of the property where the compound wall constructeddiffers. In the said facts and circumstances, I find that theclaimants are entitled to compensation for the cost ofconstruction of the compound wall. ::6::L.A.A.No.2122 Of 2008In the result, the appeal is allowed. The land value fixed bythe reference court is modified. The land value is fixed @Rs.74,429/- per Are. The claimants are entitled to recover thesaid amount with statutory benefits less the amount awarded bythe reference court. In addition, the claimants are also entitledto Rs.35,000/- for the cost of construction of the compound wallwith statutory benefits. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.bkn/-