Ramachandran Nair, J.
The appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment in L.A.R No.32 of 2011 of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, against the claimant has filed Cross Objection for raising further claims regarding the value of improvements.
2. The extent of property involved is 06.74 Ares of dry land comprised in Survey No.380/5-20 of Marady Village which was acquired for the construction of Ernakulam-Thekkady Road (Naz Road). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 15.03.2008. The land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was @ Rs.2,88,756/- per Are, which was enhanced to Rs.12,35,000/- per Are relying on Ext.A1 judgment.
3. We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri Padmaraj for the State and Sri Narayanan for the claimant. At the outset, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that reliance was wrongly made on the judgment Ext.A1 by the Reference Court. It is submitted that Ext.A1 is the judgment in L.A.R No.18 of 2010 wherein the land value was fixed by relying upon Ext.A1 document produced in that case. The said document is produced as Ext.A2 in this case. Advantages of the said property include access to M.C Road and that it is in front of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus stand, Muvattupuzha, which is a more important locality than the locality in which the acquired property is situated. The acquired property is having frontage to Naz Road as well as access to the Bapuji road, a Municipality road.
4. As far as the judgment Ext.A1 is concerned, we have modified the land value in L.A.A No.346 of 2012. We have granted 20% less than value reflected in Ext.A1 document and we have fixed it at Rs.11,10,675/- per Are and that was in respect of a property on the side of the Muvattupuzha-Arakkuzha road. As regards the property nearest to the Naz road, we have fixed the land value at Rs.10,41,257/- per Are by reducing 25% from the land value fixed for Ext.A1 property. Since the property of the claimant herein is comparable to the same, namely, which were involved in L.A.A No.176 of 2013 and connected cases, we adopt the same value. Accordingly the appeal filed by the State is allowed to the above extent and we grant land value @ Rs.10,41,257/- per Are.
5. In the Cross Objection, the claimant has mainly sought enhancement in the value of improvements. The learned counsel Sri Narayanan submitted that the report of the Advocate Commissioner, sketch prepared by the expert and the estimate are available as Exts.C1, C1(a) and C1(b). The Advocate Commissioner and expert were examined as AW1 and AW2 and it is submitted that the improvements mainly relate to the construction of the retaining wall as well as filling soil. The claimant also seeks a market value for Anhili tree. It is submitted that the court below did not grant anything for the construction of the retaining wall on the finding that the claimant did not adduce independent evidence with regard to the expenditures incurred by her. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that if a further opportunity is granted, the claimant will be able to satisfy the court below about this aspect.
We find from the judgment that this point was considered in para.9 of the court below and the court was of the view that Exts.C1, C1(a) and C1(b) and the oral evidence of AW1 and AW2 cannot be accepted for ascertaining the actual costs incurred for the improvements in the acquired land. In the absence of sufficient materials, this Court will not be able to consider the claim also. Therefore, the only alternative available to us is to remand the matter back for consideration of the said aspect since as regards the land value we have finally fixed the same.
Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the trial court for enabling the claimant to adduce evidence on the claim regarding the value of improvements alone. We allow C.O No.221 of 2014 and the court fee paid on the Memorandum of Cross Objection will be refunded to the appellant.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge rtr/ /true copy/ Sd/-
P.V.ASHA Judge P.S to Judge