IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 LAA. No. 683 OF 2004 ---------------------- LAR. No. 81/97 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------------- PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD, TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH FRANKLIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) COPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19. 2. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, ALONG WITH RP.1182/09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RP. No. 1182 of 2009 in LAA. No. of 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this petition for review the Palace Administration Board, the claimant seek review of our judgment dated 2nd July, 2009 on various grounds. In fact Sri. Joseph Franklin, learned counsel for the review petitioner addressed arguments on all those grounds, however, only one of the grounds appeal to us. It was by relying on the judgment in LAR. No. 460/87 (Ext.A5 judgment) that the reference court and ourselves refixed the land value. We observed at paragraph 8 of our judgment that Ext.A5 judgment is in respect of acquisition pursuant to the very same section 4 (1) notification, as in the present case. It is now revealed that there was a time gap of about 13 months between the two notifications. The present notification is 13 months later than the notification which covers Ext.A5. The RP. 1182/09 -2- property is situated in perhaps the most important area of the erstwhile Ernakulam Municipality, very near to the Ernakulam Siva Temple and Durbar Hall Grounds. We feel that there is justification for adding a little more than 15% for the passage of time. Making additions in that way, the value of the land will have to be refixed at Rs.1,85,000/- per Are. The R.P. is allowed to the extent of refixing value of the land under acquisition at Rs.1,85,000/- per Are. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ksv/-