IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 LA.App..No. 299 of 2010(D) -------------------------- LAR.215/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. NARAYANAN, ANIVALIL HOUSE, IRUMPAYAM P.O., VIA THALAYOLAPARAMBU. 2. AYYAPPAN NARAYANAN, ELAVANAL PUTHENPURA, MULAKKULAM, VADAKKEKARA, PIRAVOM. 3. THE HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LTD., NEWS PRINT NAGAR P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADV. MR.E.K.MADHAVAN FOR R3 MS.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R3 MR.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R3 MR.P.J.ANILKUMAR FOR R3 MR.BIMAL K.NATH FOR R1,2 MR.SREEVALSAN.V FOR R1,2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.299 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The State of Kerala in L.A.R.No.215 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam is the appellant. The only contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the claimants/petitioners are not entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court in paragraph 9 of the judgment considered the question and granted the benefit under Section 23(1A) of the Act. In paragraph 9 it is stated that the claimants are entitled to 30% of the market value under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 4.10.1977 and the award was passed on 16.8.1980. Compensation was paid before the Land Acquisition Amendment Act of 1984. Since the award was passed before the Amendment Act, 1984 the claimants are not entitled to benefits under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. This is clarified accordingly. On a perusal of the decree passed in this case it is L.A.A.No.299 Of 2010 ::2:: seen that the benefit under Section 23(1A) was not granted. Therefore the State has no grievance in this regard. At the same time since the reference court in paragraph 9 of the judgment took the view that the claimant is entitled to benefit under Section 23(1A), it is clarified as stated above. In the result, the L.A.A is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-