IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No.358 of 2008 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN LAA.95/2006 DATED 05.12.2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS: ------------------------- 1. MUMTAZ,D/O.LATE C.H.MUHAMMED KUNHI, PADINJAR,UDUMA VILLAGE & POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. BEEBI,D/O.LATE C.H.MUHAMMED KUNHI, PADINJAR,UDUMA VILLAGE & POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. TAJUDDIN,S/O.LATE C.H.MUHAMMED KUNHI, PADINJAR,UDUMA VILLAGE & POST,KASARGOD DISTRICT. 4. HASSAINAR,S/O.LATE C.H.MUHAMMED KUNHI, PADINJAR,UDUMA VILLAGE & POST,KASARGOD DISTRICT. 5. SUMAYYA,D/O.LATE C.H.MUHAMMED KUNHI, PADINJAR,UDUMA VILLAGE & POST,KASARGOD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN & MOTHER SMT.SUHARABI. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C.A.ZOHRABI. BY MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS & REFERRING AND REQUISITIONING OFFICERS : -------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,L.A,KASARGOD. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BEKAL RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAWADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR. V.T.K. MOHANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, ALONG WITH RP No.409 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Review Petition No.358 OF 2008 IN L.A.A.No.95 OF2006 & Review Petition No.409 OF 2008 IN L.A.A.No.295 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009. O R D E R Kurian Joseph, J. These are review petitions at the instance of the appellants who were claimants before the reference court, Sub Court, Kasaragod in L.A.R.No.9/2001 and L.A.R.No.75/2000 respectively. Acquisition is for the purpose of Bakel Tourism Project. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.5,915/- per cent and the reference court granted 25% enhancement over that value. Hence the appeals, L.A.A.Nos.95 and 295 of 2006. 2. When the appeals were heard, it was brought to our notice that the requisitioning authority had in fact made a negotiated purchase of the land at Rs.17,500/- per cent. Being a R.P.No.358 & 409 of 2008 2 negotiated purchase, naturally, there is no other statutory benefit like solatium and benefit under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no question of interest also since the amount is paid on purchase. 3. Since, even according to the requisitioning authority, the land value was Rs.17,500/- per cent, the appeals were allowed refixing the land value at Rs.17,500/- per cent making it also clear that there will not be any other benefit by way of solatium, interest on solatium and Section 23(1A) benefit. Unfortunately, the entitlement of interest under Section 34 of the Act was not considered in the judgment. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that even without specifically granting the same, the claimants are entitled to interest under Section 34 on the land value since Rs.17,500/- per cent was offered in 1998 and hence the interest should necessarily follow. Though the learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed contending also that the land value itself fixed by this Court is very high, going through the judgments, we do not think R.P.No.358 & 409 of 2008 3 that this particular aspect was specifically dealt with in the judgments sought to be reviewed. Hence the review petitions are allowed and the judgments in L.A.A.Nos.95 and 295 of 2006 dated 05.12.2007 are recalled. KURIAN JOSEPH JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE smp R.P.No.358 & 409 of 2008 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. R.P. No.358 OF 2008 IN L.A.A.No.95 OF2006 & R.P. No.409 OF 2008 IN L.A.A.No.295 OF 2006 O R D E R 02.02.2009