IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 1241 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.80/2007 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- THOMAS, S/O.CHERIA, PADINJARE KONETH, MATTAKUZHIKARA, THIRUVANIYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SRI.K.C.PAULOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION BUILDINGS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030. 2. THE DEPUTY MANAGER (PROJECTS), KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, AMBALAMUGHAL. GOVT.PLADER SRI.RAMANANDAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & S. S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1241 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant in a reference under section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, is the appellant. The claimant relied on the court award in LAR.95/04. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application on the reason that the property covered by the award in LAR.95/04 and the property of the claimant were not similar. However, the Land Acquisition Officer favourably considered the application under section 28A(3) submitted by the claimant. This was how the case reached the Reference Court. The Reference Court noticed that the value originally awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the property covered by LAR.95/04 was Rs.31,900/- per Are and that in L. A. A. No.1241 of 2009 -2- that LAR, the value was re-fixed at Rs.45,880/- per Are. But, the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the property of the claimant was Rs.29,000/- per Are only. But, both the properties were acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification. The court below allegedly took the view that the reference under section 28A was certainly maintainable. However, the court did not grant the value awarded to the claimant in LAR 95/04. This was because even going by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the property in LAR.95/04 was superior to the property under acquisition in this case. Ultimately, the court re- fixed the land value at Rs.38,200/- per Are. In other words, proportionate increase was given based on the award in LAR.95/04. L. A. A. No.1241 of 2009 -3- 2. Various grounds have been raised in this appeal assailing the impugned award and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed us on the basis of all those grounds. Mr.T.A.Shaji referred to the document which was produced as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was copy of another court award in which a still higher value had been awarded by the court. According to Mr.Shaji, Ext.A1 should have been relied on. Learned Subordinate Judge took the view that Ext.A1 cannot be relied on because Ext.A1 is an award subsequent to the award in LAR.95/04 relied on in 28A application. We are of the view that there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the court below. Evidently, the property in LAR.95/04 was slightly superior to the property of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant could have aspired for L. A. A. No.1241 of 2009 -4- only proportionate increase based on LAR.95/04. That is what is granted to the appellant. 3. The result is that, we do not find ground to admit this appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. However, we direct the Requisitioning Authority/Kochi Refineries Ltd. to provide requisite funds to the Government immediately i.e. within one month so that the Government can make the deposit and the appellant can draw the same. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE S. S. SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE kns/-