property herein is having the same locational importance of Ext.A5 case, definitely 60% increase in land value could have been given. However, the acquired property herein is not in the same village, not in the same locality and not in the area having the same importance as that of the property in Ext.A5 case. As stated earlier the property involved in Ext.A5 case is just 1km away from Edappally junction. Whereas the property herein is about 4 Kms. away from Edappally junction. When we go near to Edappally junction, the importance and the property value will be more. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the argument of the counsel for the claimant, that the same 60% increase may be given to this case. On the other hand it can be seen that the land value fixed by the awarding officer herein is not correct and apt. In view of the locational importance of the acquired property and the land value prevailing in the locality definitely the land value in this case should be enhanced. Considering the distance of the acquired property from Edappally junction and the importance of the area where it is situated. I am of the considered opinion that a 40% increase over the land value fixed by the awarding is found sufficient, reasonable and apt. By giving 40% increase over 1,08,800/₹ - per are fixed by the awarding officer, the enhanced land rate will come to 1,52,320/₹ - per are. The claimant is entitled to get such an enhanced land rate.”
