IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 396 of 2010(D) -------------------------- LAR.53/1998 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: -------------- SECRETARY, DARUL ULOOM ASSOCIATION VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SRI.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT AIRPORT PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (R2_ SMT.AMMINI KUTTY BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, ALONG WITH L.A.A.NO.642/2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos. 642/2005 & 396 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. L.A.A. No.396/2010 is preferred by the claimant and L.A.A. No.642/2005 is preferred by the requisitioning authority against the award of the Reference Court. While the requisitioning authority contends that the award of the Reference Court is excessive, the claimant contends that the same is grossly inadequate. The property was in Nediyiruppu village and the acquisition was for the purpose of extension of the runway of Calicut Airport. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.6225/- per cent, which was the value awarded by him in properties which had been included by him in tak No.5 for the purpose of categorisation and land value determination. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence which came on record would refix the market value of the land at Rs.7,000/- per cent. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging such refixation. Sri.M.P.Prakash, the learned counsel for the L.A.A..No.642/2005 & another 2 appellant in his submission would highlight the judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.1460/2007 series to which one among us (PCK (J)) was party. It is seen that under that judgment, the market value of identical lands have been refixed at Rs.10,500/-. Sri.Prakash submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had included the property under acquisition in a superior category viz. tak No.4. He referred to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in this context. According to him for properties included in such category under the common judgment in L.A.A. No.1460/2007 this Court had refixed the value at Rs.11,500/- per cent. 3. Smt.Ammini Kutty on behalf of the requisitioning authority would oppose the submissions of Sri.Prakash. She submitted that it is not correct to say that the property under acquisition was included in tak No.4. The Land Acquisition Officer in the award stated that Block No.4 is different from Tak No.4. She points out that the claimant did not have any specific claim before the Reference Court that his property ought to have been included in a superior category. The fact that the awarding officer has awarded Rs.6,225/- per cent clearly shows that the L.A.A..No.642/2005 & another 3 property was included in Tak No.5 only. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the memorandum of appeal preferred by the claimant. We find merit in the submission of Smt. Ammini Kutty that the appellant/claimant did not have a specific claim that his property was liable to be upgraded to a higher category. Even though commission was taken out, the commissioner was not asked to measure the distance from the boundary of the property under acquisition to the Kondotty - Melangadi road which was taken as the land mark for categorisation of the property into various taks. The appeal memorandum also will show that no specific ground is raised that the property was eligible to be included in the superior category of Tak No. 4. 5. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the property under acquisition has to be treated as falling within tak No.5. We notice that in the common judgment in L.A.A. No.1460/2007, value of properties in Tak No.5 has been refixed as Rs.10,500/- per cent. It is not disputed that the above common judgment has become final. We also notice that under that common judgment for extents involving more than 50 L.A.A..No.642/2005 & another 4 cents a deduction of 7.5% has been made in view of the largeness of the extent. The extent involved in the present case is 2.79 acres. We are of the view that the proper percentage to be deducted in this case is 10 and not 7.5. Making deductions that way, we refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.9450/- per cent. 6. Another point, which is raised is that the Court below went wrong in not awarding severance compensation to the claimant. Even though Sri. Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant very strenuously argued before us that the remainder property has been injuriously affected because of the acquisition, we find that the claimant/appellant is able to put the remainder property to better use after acquisition. It is seen from the judgment that the claimant has started an educational institution and is conducting the same in the remainder property. We are not at all impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that the remainder property has been injuriously affected. 7. The result of the above discussion is, therefore, as follows; L.A.A..No.642/2005 & another 5 i). L.A.A. No.642/2005 is dismissed. ii). L.A.A. No. 396/2010 is allowed. The market value of the land under acquisition is refixed at Rs.9450/- per cent. It is needless to mention that the claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Act subject to what has been stated in this Court's order dated 26/5/2010. While drafting the decree the Section will have due regard to condition No. “3” mentioned in the order dated 26/5/2010 in C.M.Appln. 676/2010. L.A.A. 396/2010 is allowed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The Registry will issue decree copy only upon the appellant/claimant remitting the entire balance court fee. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk