IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32544 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.KAMALADEVI, W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, PUTTANAMATTATHIL, MANAKKAD, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.LEELAMMA GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION'KUYILI MALA, IDUKKI. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.32544/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 award passed by the land acquisition Collector (The Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki) under Section 28A to the extent which declines to her the amount due under Section 23 (1A) on the redetermined compensation i.e. enhanced market value due to her on the basis of Ext.P1 award. Another ground of challenge is that Ext.P1 is vitiated also to the extent that statutory interest admissible under Section 34 from the date of the award of the Collector which is 5/9/2002 is also declined. 2. On this writ petition coming up for admission, as directed by me, Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader, took notice. I have heard Smt.Leelamma George, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader also would submit that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari and others (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2259) the petitioner may be eligible for the amounts due WPC.No.32544/2008 2 under Section 23 (1A) more so since under the original award of the land acquisition officer amounts under Section 23(1A) was awarded to her. 3. Having regarding to the submissions addressed at the Bar, I am of the view that the writ petition can be allowed to the following extent: i). Ext.P1 is modified and there will be a direction to the third respondent to award to the petitioner, the amounts due under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act on the redetermined market value of the land calculated at 12% p.a. from 18/8/1999 till 5/9/2002. ii). There will be a further direction to the third respondent to release to the petitioner over and above what is already awarded under Ext.P1, statutory interest on the total enhanced compensation, which becomes admissible under Ext.P1 as per Section 34 of the L.A. Act i.e. at 9% from the first year and 15% from the succeeding year till such time as the entire enhanced compensation is released. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk