IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2007 / 30TH ASWINA 1929 LA.App..No. 993 of 2003 --------------------------------- LAR.61/1998 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, N.PARAVUR ......................................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ----------------------------------- PAULOSE, SON OF KUNJU VARKEY, THANDAKADAN, AKAPARAMBU. BY ADV. SRI. T.R. RAJAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2007 ALONG WITH LAA NO. 697/2001 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE& P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. Nos. 993 & 1245 of 2003 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. LAA. No. 1245/03 is preferred by the Government and LAA.No. 993/03 is preferred by the claimant. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and decree in LAR. No. 61 of 1998 of the Sub Court, North Parur. The case pertains to acquisition of land for the establishment of the International Airport at Nedumbassery. Under the impugned judgment the reference court granted 96% enhancement over the value which had been awarded by the L.A. Officer. It is submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader as well as by the learned Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority that this Court has uniformly reduced the enhancement to 45%. We would have been inclined to accept the above submission and allow the Government's appeal. But Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned counsel LAA. N0.993 & 1245 of 2003 -2- for the claimant would submit that the land acquisition officer as well as the reference court has mistakenly treated the property under acquisition as double crop wet land. On the basis of the Commissioner's report, Ext.A1 judgment and R4 valuation statement, Mr.Chacko forcefully argues that the acquired property was as a matter of fact, reclaimed land. The above submission of Mr.Chacko is resisted by the standing counsel for the requisitioning authority and the learned Government Pleader on the basis of the mahazar which indicates that what was acquired from the claimant was double crop wet land. But as rightly submitted by Mr.Chacko the claimant is not an attester to the mahazar. We feel that the issue as to what was the real nature of the property under acquisition should be reconsidered and decided. Accordingly we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand LAR. No. 61 of 1998 on the files of the Sub Court, North Parur to that LAA. N0.993 & 1245 of 2003 -3- court. That court will decide the issue as to what was the real nature of the acquired property at the time of acquisition and if it is found that the property was reclaimed land, the correct market value to be awarded to the claimant will be 45% above the rate which was awarded by the L.A. Officer for reclaimed dry lands. The reference court will complete the enquiry and pass revised judgment pursuant to this order of remand early and at any rate, within four months of parties entering appearance before that court. Refund court fee paid on LAA. No. 993 of 2003 to the learned counsel for the appellant. Parties will appear before the reference court on 3-8-2009. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ksv/- LAA. N0.993 & 1245 of 2003 -4- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. LAA. Nos. 993 & 1245 of 2003 JUDGMENT 25th June, 2009.