IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 207 of 2002() ------------------------- LAR.391/1994 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT: CLAIMANTS 3 TO 11: ----------------------------- 1. G.INDRANI, T.C.45/1284, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. G.THULASI BAI, T.C.44/1558, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. S.SIVARAMAN, T.C.43/1326, NEAR SIVANKOVIL, MUTTATHARA. 4. J.DHAKSHAYANI, T.C.43/1285, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. H.JALAJA, T.C.44/1566, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. R.PRABHAVALLI OF -DO-. 7. K.PRABHAKARAN OF -DO-. 8. G.VIJAYAKUMARI, T.C.44/1559, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. G.SINDHU OF -DO- -DO-. BY ADVS. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC SRI.SHEEBA JOSEPH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.NO. 207 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. Claimants 3 to 11 in L.A.R. No.391 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.4.2000 passed by the reference court in the above Land Acquisition Reference. 2. The extent of land acquired in this case is 30.68 Ares comprised in Survey Nos.2610/28 and 2610/29 of Muttarara Village. Acquisition is for the purpose of Thiruvananthapuram Airport. Section 4(1) notification is dated 31.12.1990. The properties under acquisition were categorised by the Land Acquisition Officer as Category Nos. A to F and land value was fixed at different rates considering the importance of the properties. Finding that the land under acquisition came under Category No. D, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs.29,617/- per Are. Before the reference court, the claimants contended that the value fixed by the L.A.A.NO.207/2002 2 Land Acquisition Officer is low and does not reflect the market value of the property. They also contended that the land ought to have been included under A category and that the market value of the property at the time of acquisition was more than Rs.50,000/- per cent. The claimants further contended that the acquired property is situated near the Airport, International Airport Authority, National Highway, Schools, Post Office, Police Station, market etc. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of AWs.1 and 2. No documentary evidence was produced by the claimants. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence, but produced Exts.R1 to R4. The reference court held that the claimants are not entitled to any enhanced compensation for the reason that they failed to adduce any evidence in support of their claim. 3. The appellants/claimants produced two documents before this Court. Annexure-A1 is the copy of the judgment in L.A.R. No.24 of 1995 of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and Annexure-A2 is the copy of the judgment in L.A.R. No.256 of 1996 of the same court. The property covered by Annexure- A1 is also acquired for the same purpose and covered by notification of the year 1990. The said property was categorised as Category No.D for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.29,617/- per Are. On reference, the court below L.A.A.NO.207/2002 3 granted enhancement. Similarly, the property covered by Annexure-A2 also relates to the same acquisition pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 30.3.1991 in which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of Rs.Rs.29,617/- per Are including the land under Category nod. On reference, the court below relied on Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R. No.72 of 1995 in that case and prefixed the land value granting enhancement. 4. In the light of the re fixation of compensation for similar lands covered by Flexure's-A1 and A2 judgments, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the reference court for the purpose of fixation of land value. At the same time, we notice that the claimants are solely responsible for the dismissal of the reference case for the reason that they did not produce any document before the reference court to substantiate their case. Therefore, there is no justification in granting interest at 15% from 16.11.2002 to 5.8.2008 at least for the period during which this appeal was pending before this Court\. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and remit the case to the court below. It is made clear that the appellants/claimants are not entitled to interest for the aforesaid period. The reference court shall dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy L.A.A.NO.207/2002 4 of this judgment. In view of the remand, the appellants are entitled to refund of full court fee. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) tip/ L.A.A.NO.207/2002 5 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A. NO. 207/2002 JUDGMENT 5th August, 2008 L.A.A.NO.207/2002 6