IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 LA.App..No. 879 of 2009(D) -------------------------- LAR.41/2004 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- R.RAJESH, MUDAMPIL VEEDU, VAYYAMOOLA, PETTAH VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, (THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN FOR R2 BY G.P. SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 879 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The only grievance, which is voiced by the appellant in this appeal, is that the awarding officer and the reference court went wrong in declining payment of the additional amount under Section 23 (1A) during the period from 31/3/2000 to 20/6/2002 on the reason that the acquisition proceedings were under stay. The issue raised in this appeal, in our opinion, is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the judgment of this court in Balachandran v. State of Kerala(2010 (2) KLT 269), to which one among us, PCK(J)) was a party. For the various reasons stated in that judgment, the appellant is entitled for relief. 2. The appeal is allowed and it is declared that the appellant is entitled for the additional amount under Section 23(1A) for the period from 31/3/2000 till 20/6/2002 also. The impugned judgment will stand modified accordingly. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The Section, while drafting the appellate decree, will take L.A.A..No.879/2009 2 due note of the order passed by us in C.M.Appln.1146/2009 which means that for the additional amounts awarded under this judgment, the appellant will not be entitled for interest under Section 28 during the period of 355 days condoned by that order. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk