IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 1342 of 2009(A) -------------------------------- LAR.112/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT B TO I : -------------------------------------- 1. THRESIAMMA, W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS, THANNIKKAPARAMBIL OLANADU, VARAPPUZHA. 2. PHILOMINA, D/O. JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, THANNIKKAPARAMBIL OLANADU, VARAPPUZHA. REP.BY POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER IST APPELLANT, THRESSIAMMA. 3. MERCY, D/O. JOSEPH, AGED 36YEARS, THANNIKKAPARAMBIL OLANADU, VARAPPUZHA. REP.BY POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER IST APPELLANT, THRESSIAMMA. 4. SEBASTIAN, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 34, THANNIKKAPARAMBIL OLANADU, VARAPPUZHA. REP.BY POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER IST APPELLANT, THRESSIAMMA. 5. VIJU, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS, THANNIKKAPARAMBIL OLANADU, VARAPPUZHA. REP.BY POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER IST APPELLANT, THRESSIAMMA. 6. BINDHU, D/O. .JOSEPH, AGED 30 YEARS, THANNIKKAPARAMBIL OLANADU, VARAPPUZHA. REP.BY POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER IST APPELLANT, THRESSIAMMA. LA.App..No. 1342 of 2009(A) -2- 7. SIJI, D/O. JOSEPH, AGED 27 YEARS, THANNIKKAPARAMBIL OLANADU, VARAPPUZHA. REP.BY POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER IST APPELLANT, THRESSIAMMA. 8. SALIJI ,D/OJOSEPH, AGED 24 YEARS, THANNIKKAPARAMBIL OLANADU, VARAPPUZHA. REP.BY POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER IST APPELLANT, THRESSIAMMA. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT & 'J' RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO. III, VYTTILA. 2. THE MANAGER, FEDRAL BANK LTD., VARAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO.1367 OF 2009 & CON. CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.1342, 1343 & 1367 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J All these appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Alangad village for the purpose of upgradation of National Highway-17 from Varapuzha to Cheriapally. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 23/08/04. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.87,576/- per Are only. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties would re- fix the land value at Rs.1,44,500/- per Are. To the appellant in LAA.1367/09, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded about Rs.1,50,000/- as value for the building. The Reference Court would award further amount of roughly Rs.51,000/- as additional building value. In all the appeals grounds are L. A. A. Nos.1342, 1343 & 1367 2009 -2- raised urging that the market value determined for the land is inadequate. In LAA.1367/09 there is a ground that further value should be awarded for the building. 2. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed before us by Sri.Biju Abraham the learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Josephina, the learned Government Pleader. We are of the view that the issue regarding the market value of the land is covered in favour of the appellants to some extent by judgment of this Court in LAA.1101/09. Relying on that judgment, we allow all these appeals and re-fix market value of land under acquisition at Rs.1,62,000/- per Are. In LAA.1367/09, the evidence adduced by the claimants regarding building value was his own oral evidence. We do not find any evidence on the basis of which more enhancement can be granted for the building than what is granted already by the Reference Court. L. A. A. Nos.1342, 1343 & 1367 2009 -3- 3. The appeals will stand allowed only to the extent of re-fixing the land value at Rs.1,62,000/- per Are. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits also admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, while drafting the decrees, the Section will have due regard to the conditions, if any, imposed by this Court while condoning the delay. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-