Pius C.Kuriakose, J - (1.) THE first claimant is in appeal. His land in Edappally(N) village was acquired by the Government pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 14/03/02. THE land was included in category-3 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,59,000/- per Are. THE Reference Court under the impugned judgment would re-fix the land value at Rs.2,54,000/- per Are. 0.92 Ares of land was lying as a pathway. For this portion the Land Acquisition Officer awarded only Rs.100/- per Are. THEre was claim for enhancement of market value of the above portion also.
(2.) BEFORE the Reference Court the appellants relied mostly on Ext.A2 and other documents. These documents reflected much higher value. The court below did not place any reliance on those documents. Ultimately what the court below did was to re-fix the market value by applying the rule of thumb about at least 60% above what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, the market vlaue of the land was re-fixed at Rs.2,54,000/-. However, as regards the portion (which was lying as road - 0.92 Ares), the court below did not award any enhancement. In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging the adequacy of the market value fixed and also the action of the court below in not awarding any enhancement for road portion. Sri.P.S.Narayana Raja, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments in support of the grounds. according to him, the court below was not at all justified in placing any reliance on the documents produced, particularly Ext.A2 which according to him, was properly proved. Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader would draw our attention to earlier judgment of this Court wherein allowing Government's appeal we have re-fixed market value of the identical land at maximum rate of 70% above the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. at Rs.2,70,300/-. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. Though Sri.Raja was very persuasive we are not inclined to say that the learned Subordinate Judge has gone wrong in discarding the documents including Ext.A2. At the same time, we feel that there is justification for re-fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.2,70,300/- per Are (i.e. 70% above the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer). We find much force in the submission of Sri.Raja that the land value should have been awarded for the road portion also at the above rate. After all, it was not a public road. It was only a private road used by the claimants for their own private purposes. Hence, it is our view that for the road portion extending to 0.92 Ares, the appellant is entitled for the land value at Rs.2,70,300/- per Are. The appellant is awarded compensation for the above portion also at the above rate.
(3.) THE appeal is allowed to the above extent only. THE appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the re-fixed compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. In the circumstances, proportionate cost (cost in proportion to the success in this appeal) will also be paid to the appellants.;