Ramachandran Nair, J. Both these appeals are from the same judgment namely from L.A.R No.29 of 2008 of the Additional Subordinate Court- III, Ernakulam. Claimant is the appellant in L.A.A No.1549 of 2009 and the State, the respondent in this case, has filed appeal - L.A.A No.930 of 2010.
2. The property is acquired for widening N.H-17 at the stretch of Edappally-Cheranelloor. The total extent of the property acquired is 5.18 Ares comprised in Sy.No.28/4A of Edappally North Village. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 14.03.2002.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.91,680/- per Are and the court below has enhanced the land value to Rs.1,84,800/- per Are. In the process of considering the claim of the claimant, the court below found that the categorisation of property as Category No.6 namely the land situated in interior place without road frontage was found incorrect by the reference court and it was found that the property comes under Category No.1 and accordingly the compensation has been granted.
4. We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State and Sri Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted by relying upon the judgments in connected appeals, of this Court that the claimant is entitled for enhancement by 110%. Our attention is drawn to the judgments in L.A.A No.947/2010, 797/2010 as well as 916 of 2010.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader relied upon the judgment in L.A.A No.125 of 2011 which is an appeal filed by the State from the judgment in L.A.R No.31 of 2008 which was disposed of along with the present case by a common judgment. Therein, after approving the 40% increase granted by the Reference Court, it is recorded by the Division Bench that they noticed other judgments of this Court approving enhancement at 70% above the rate granted by the Land Acquisition Officer.
6. Mainly it is contended by Sri Radhakrishnan that there is no difference between the properties on two sides of the railway cross and according to him, the property is having equal importance with the properties on the other side of the railway cross ie., from Edappally junction to the railway cross. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the acquired property herein is situated, if we take the stretch starting from Edappally junction, beyond the railway cross and therefore it is of less importance. Sri Radhakrishnan submitted, by relying upon the Commissioner's Report, that various public institutions are situated within a short distance of the acquired property. According to the learned counsel, therefore adopting the market value fixed by this Court in the judgments relied upon by him, 110% of increase of the value fixed by the reference court can be easily arrived at.
7. Even though the report of the Commissioner is available to show the details of institutions in and around the locality, we do not find therein any comparison of the properties situated on the two sides of the railway cross, ie. stretch from Edappally junction to the railway cross, and those lying from the railway cross onwards. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant will be able to prove before the trial court, if a fresh opportunity is granted, that his property has also got equal importance and is having potential value for claiming enhancement at least at 110% than what is granted by the reference court now.
8. Since evidence on this aspect is necessary, we find that it is only appropriate for this Court to give an opportunity to the claimant and therefore we allow the appeals and remand the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. Both sides are allowed to adduce evidence.
The court fee paid on the Memorandum of Appeal L.A.A No.1549 of 2009 will be refunded to the appellant therein. No costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge rtr/ /true copy/ Sd/-
P.V.ASHA Judge P.S to Judge