Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.
The claimants are the appellants. The L.A.A.68/2014 is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.55/2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Kasragod and L.A.A.No.124/2014 against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.64/2011 of the same court. Properties belonging to the claimants were acquired for the purpose of formation of road leading to BRDC Resort site. Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23.6.2008. The extent of land acquired in L.A.A.68/2014 is 0.0150 hectares in R.S.No.110/7 of Kalanad Village and in L.A.A.No.124/2014 is 0.0047 hectares in R.S.No.113/17 of Kalanad Village. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of ` 12,220/- per cent in L.A.R.No.55/2011 and ` 13,747/- in L.A.R.No.64/2011. The reference court enhanced the land value and re-fixed @ ` 70,000/- per cent in L.A.R.No.55/2011 against a claim of ` 2 Lakhs per cent and @ ` 75,000/- per cent in L.A.R.No.64/2011. The quantum of compensation awarded is under challenge in these two appeals. Parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the reference cases.
2. L.A.R.No.55/2011 was jointly tried and disposed of along with three other connected cases. The power of attorney holder of one of the claimants in L.A.R.No.64/2011 was examined as AW1. Exts.A1 to A5 documents were marked on the side of the claimants. R1 to R11 and C1 to C4 were also marked.
3. The claimants produced Exts.A1 to A5 documents in supports of their contentions that the acquired lands will get higher value than determined under the award. In Ext.C1 report, the Commissioner reported that the acquired lands are situated in a thickly populated area where there are palatial residential houses and that their properties are situated about 1.5 km away from Kizhoor town. The court below also found that Ext.C1 report clearly support the case of PW1 that the acquired properties are situated in a faster developing area. Exts.C2 & C3 plans furnish the lie and location of the acquired properties in the above cases. As per Ext.C1 report, the basic land covered by Ext.R2 is situated above 4.5 km away from the acquired properties and that the said property is having only narrow road frontage. The Commissioner also reported that having considered the location of the land, proximity to commercially important area, nature of improvements, facility to approach the property etc., the acquired properties are superior in nature and more potential than the basic land. The court also considered the details regarding the properties covered under Exts.A1 to A5 documents. The reference court in detail examined and discussed the features of each and every property covered under Exts.A1 to A5 documents. The Commissioner in Ext.C4 reported that the properties covered by Exts.A3 to A5 documents are situated 500 metres away from the properties in the present cases, that they are having only mud road approach and not situated in a commercially potential area. It is also reported that the said lands are not fit for residential occupation. The Commissioner also reported in Exts.C1 & C3 reports that the properties covered by Exts.A1 to A5 documents are not similar and similarly placed with that of the acquired properties and that the acquired properties are superior than the lands covered by Exts.A1 to A5.
4. The reference court fixed the land value after considering elaborately the nature, lie, potential value and other features of property covered by Exts.A1 to A5 and after considering Exts.C1 & C3 reports. The reference court ultimately concluded that the acquired lands are situated in a better area which is more commercially and residentially potent than the property covered under Exts.A1 to A5 documents. The reference court also found that the average land value of properties covered by Exts.A1 to A3 documents is ` 30,000/- per cent. It is also noticed that the award passed in Exts.A1 to A5 judgments are of the year 2000 and award in the present cases were passed in the year 2010 and that there is a gap of 10 years of which value can be calculated @ 10% increase per year. The reference court thus found that the market value of the properties can be assessed at the rate of `60,000/- per cent. The court also granted additional weightage for the reason that the acquired properties are superior in nature than the lands covered by Exts.A1 to A5 documents. The reference court fixed the land value of the property covered by L.A.R.No.55/2011 as ` 70,000/- per cent and `75,000/- per cent in L.A.R.No.64/2011.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also examined the contentions of the appellants in detail.
These are cases where the Land Acquisition Officer awarded `12,220/- and ` 13,747/- per cent. This was enhanced by the reference court taking into consideration all relevant factors necessary for fixation of reasonable and just compensation. We do not find any reason to admit the appeals for the purpose of examining further as to whether the appellants are entitled to any additional compensation. We are satisfied fully with the reasons and observations made by the court below in fixing just compensation in these cases.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed in limine.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.
bkn/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.