IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 680 of 2005() ------------------------------ LAR.122/1999 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER (HR), NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & IST RESPONDENT ----------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, KOLLANTATHU, VALIAKUZHI, CHEPPAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. GOVT. PLEADER, MAVELIKARA. R1 BY ADV. MR.N.HARIDAS, MR.P.N.SASIDHARAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= L.A.A. No. 680 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. This is an appeal filed by the requisitioning authority. Their grievances are two folds. The Land Acquisition Officer categorized the properties as dry land and wet land and adopted a uniform rate for both wet land and dry land. The second phase of their contention is that enhancement granted is highly excessive. 2. We have heard Smt. Latha Krishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.N.Haridas, the learned counsel for the claimant and Smt.P.N.Sumangala, the learned Government Pleader. 3. The total extent of land under acquisition is 8.60 Ares. the Land Acquisition Officer categorized 3.70 Ares as dry land and awarded land value at Rs.11,925/- per Are. The remaining extent of 4.90 Ares was treated as wet land and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.3,480/-. The reference court, on the basis of the evidence, fixed a uniform rate of Rs.49,400/- per Are for both the wet land and dry land. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the L.A.A.No 680/05 2 court below was not justified in adopting uniform rate for both wet and dry lands. It is seen from the claim statement that the admitted portion of the land as wet land and other portion as dry land. 4. We have reappraised the evidence. We are of the view that the enhancement granted by the reference court is excessive, even in the case of dry land. In the case of dry land, according to us, the market value would be re-fixed on a better appreciation of evidence at Rs.35,775/- per Are. In the case of wet land, it may not be re-fixed at the rate above Rs.10,445/- per Are. 5. Setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, we allow the appeal. 3.70 Ares of land are treated as dry land and re-fix the value at Rs.35,775/-. Similarly, we fixed the value of 4.90 ares, found by the Land Acquisition Officer, at Rs.10,445/-. The claimant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under sections 23(2, 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible on account of our re-fixation, including interest on solatium. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mn.