IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 LA.App..No. 394 of 2003() ------------------------- LAR.96/1994 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- GAURIAMMA MEENAKSHIAMMA, CHAKKELETHU VADAKKETHIL, NANGIARKULANGARA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.N.V.AJAYAKUMAR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, (DESCRIBED IN THE JUDGMENT AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MAVELIKKARA) 2. N.T.P.C.LTD., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHADISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1 ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R2 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.394 of 2003 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The claimants are in appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Chingoli Village for the purpose of construction of staff quarters for the NTPC Limited. Acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 23.12.1989. As against a claim of Rs.12,000/- per cent the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per Are treating the land to be wet land. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 judgment in LAR.No.417/1993 of the same court and the oral evidence of the appellant as AW1. The reference court relying mainly on Ext.A1 would re-fix the land value at Rs.4,800/- per Are thus granting an enhancement by 100% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. In this appeal, the ground which is seriously raised by the appellant is that her land should have been L.A.A.394/2003 2 treated as reclaimed dry land. We do not find any reason for upholding that ground since as already stated it was only oral evidence that was adduced by AW1 and she had not taken out any commission to substantiate her claim that her land was actually reclaimed dry land. At the same time, we notice various judgments of this court where this court has generally approved the refixation of the land value at 200% above what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in similar cases. Noticing those judgments and also noticing the decision of the requisitioning authority to withdraw from the appeals filed by them wherein enhancement upto 150% of what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was challenged we are of the view that the market value of the land can be refixed at Rs.7,000/- per Are. This means that over and above what was awarded by the reference court the appellants will get a sum of Rs.2,200/- per Are more. The appeal stands allowed to that extent awarding Rs.2,200/- per Are over and above what is awarded by the reference court. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Needless to mention that the appellant will get all statutory L.A.A.394/2003 3 benefits on the total enhanced compensation that she is getting by virtue of reference court's judgment and by virtue of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb