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 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 106 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.348/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. SRI.M.K.MOOSA, S/O.LATE KHADER, MALIYAM VEETTIL, CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPPALLY. 2. SRI.M.K.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.LATE KHADER, MALIYAM VEETTIL, CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPPALLY. 3. SRI.M.K.MUHAMMED, S/O.LATE KHADER, MALIYAM VEETTIL, CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, N.H.I, KAKKANAD. 2. THE EXE. ENGINEER, N.H.(B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLOOR. BY SR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, ALONG WITH LAA. NO.107 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. Nos. 106 & 107 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimants are the appellants. The acquisition in both these cases were pursuant to section 4(1) notification published on 14-3-2002. The properties were in Edappally North Village. The property in LAA. 106 of 2010 which corresponds to LAR. No. 348 of 2006 was included by the LA Officer in category – I and awarded a value of Rs.1,32,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court the appellant claimant produced Ext.A1. The court below relied on Ext.A1 and re-fixed land value at Rs.1,60,000/- per Are. Thus in that case, the court below granted an enhancement of roughly 21% over the value which was awarded by the LA Officer. 2. In LAA. No. 107 of 2010 which corresponds to LAR. No. 324 of 2006 the property was included in category – II LAA.106 & 107 of 2010 - 2 - by the LA Officer. For that property the LAO awarded value at the rate of Rs.1,25,400/- per Are. In this case on the basis of the evidence that was adduced by the appellant the court below re-fixed the value at Rs.1,63,020/-, a rate higher than the rate that was given for property in category – I, i.e., the property involved in LAA. No. 106 of 2010. Sri.P.K.Aboobacker, learned counsel for the appellant addressed us in detail on the basis of the various grounds raised. He drew our attention to various judgments of this court where this court has re-fixed the value of properties involved in categories – I and II acquired for the same purpose at 45% above the rate awarded by the LA Officer. Mr. Aboobacker requested that those judgments may be followed and the market values of the lands under acquisition in both these appeals be re-fixed accordingly. 4. The request of Mr.Aboobacker was opposed by Mr.Basant Balaji, learned senior Govt. Pleader. The LAA.106 & 107 of 2010 - 3 - opposition was stiffer in LAA. No. 106 of 2010. Mr.Basant Balaji submitted that in that case the party relied on Ext. A1 judgment under which the market value of property in category – I was re-fixed by the reference court to Rs.1,60,000/- per Are. The court below cannot be blamed for having relied on Ext.A1 at the request of the party. 5. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have also kept in mind the legislative principles underlying under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. We notice particularly that no specific ground is raised in LAA. No. 106 of 2010 that the appellant was deprived of any opportunity by the court below for producing copies of the judgments of this court under which 45% enhancement is granted. However, we feel that in view of the judgments of this court wherein 45% of the original value awarded by the LA Officer for properties included in categories – I and II the appellants in both LAA.106 & 107 of 2010 - 4 - these cases are also entitled for re-fixation of value of their acquired properties at 45% above the value awarded by reference court. Result of the above discussion is therefore as follows: LAA. No. 106 of 2010 is allowed and the market value of the land under acquisition is re-fixed at Rs.1,91,400/- per Are. LAA. No. 107 of 2010 is also allowed and the market value of the land under acquisition is re-fixed at Rs.1,81,830/- per Are. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation. However, since the appellant has not raised specific ground in LAA. No. 106 of 2010 and no plausible explanation is offered by the appellant as to why documents other than Ext.A1 could not be produced by the appellant earlier, the appellant in LAA. No. 106 of 2010 will not be entitled for interest under Section 28 of the Land LAA.106 & 107 of 2010 - 5 - Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible virtue of this judgment during the period from 30-6-2007 till 15-3-2010. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in these appeals. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-