IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 1872 of 2008(C) -------------------------- LAR.371/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. P. N. SUMANGALA RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & RESPONDENT NO.2 ----------------------------------------- 1. PRASANNA KUMARI AMMA, D/O.KUNJAMMA, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, T.C.NO.31/1779, VAYYAMOOK, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, INTERNATIONAL - DELETED AIRPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. NAME OF 2ND RESPONDENT DELETED AND THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSEE IS SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS 2ND RESPONDENT, VIDE ORDER DT. 12.10.2009 IN LAA: THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER (NOMEMO) FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 4160/08 IN L.A.A. NO. 1872/08 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE (JUDGE) SD/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE) 8.12.2009 // TRUE COPY // dl/ PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1872 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the Government is a court award in respect of acquisition of land in Pettah village for the development of the International Air Port, Thiruvananthpuram. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 4/2/1999. The Land acquisition Officer included the property in category 8 (dry lands with road frontage) and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.39,800/- per cent. The Reference Court relied on Ext.A2 common judgment and enhanced the land value to 15 Lakhs per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised by the Government assailing the award of the Reference Court. Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned senior Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.A2 was a totally irrelevant judgment. She further submitted that Ext.A2 at any rate has been set aside by this court in appeal. LAA.No.1872/2008 2 3. Sri.R.Manoj, learned counsel for the claimant would fairly concede that Ext.A2 is not of much relevance to the present case. The learned counsel requested for remand of the matter to the Reference Court, so that better evidence can be adduced by the claimant. When his attention was drawn to the earlier judgments of this court refixing the value of land acquired for the same purpose at 90% above what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Mr.Manoj submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the court below committed the mistake of treating this property in category 8. Relying on Ext.A4 commission report, the learned counsel submitted that the property was enjoying direct frontage of Vayyamoola - Vallakadavu road and hence the property could not have been treated as property without road frontage. 4. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. There is force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that Ext.A2 should have been ignored by the court below. Once Ext.A2 is eschewed, we do not find any document on the basis of which enhancement can be granted. On going through the earlier judgments of this court pertaining to LAA.No.1872/2008 3 acquisition for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification, what we find is that the maximum enhancement granted is 90% above what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. We shall consider the submissions of Mr.Manoj that the property is entitled to be included in a superior category . Ext.A4 is not accompanied by a sketch. Ext.A4 does not specifically report that this property was abutting Vayamoola - Vallakadavu road . Ext.A4 only says that the property is situated to the eastern side of the Vallakadavu road. In the absence of any materials, which should show that the property was abutting a road, we do not find any justification for upgrading the property. We also find that there is no case before the Land Acquisition Court or the officer for upgradation of the property. 5. Under these circumstances, the respondent cannot aspired for more than the maximum enhancement approved by this court in other cases. Thus allowing the appeal, we refix the market value of the land under Acquisition at Rs.1,32,865/- per Are corresponding to Rs.53,769/- per cent. The claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits LAA.No.1872/2008 4 admissible under Section 23 (2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk