IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 301 of 2005() ------------------------- LAR.71/1998 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT -------------- DR.T.V.VASUMATHI, W/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, PHYSICIAN, RESIDING AT `SREEVAS', CHOKLI P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN SMT.P.GOPIKA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MALABAR CANCER CARE SOCIETY, KODIYERI, KANNUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU FOR R1 SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R2 SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 301 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the land acquisition reference court, Thalassery in L.A.R.No.71/1998. The above case pertains to acquisition of land in Kodiyeri amsom within the area of Thalassery municipality pursuant to a notification dated 4-6-1997 for the purposes of Malabar Cancer Care Society. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 3770/- per cent as against a claim for Rs. 30,000/- per cent by the appellant. The reference court on evaluating the evidence which consisted of oral testimony of AW1, RWs 1 and 2, Exts.A1 and A2, Ext.B1, B1(a) and B2 and Ext.C1 would refix the land value at Rs. 5,600/- per cent. 2. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed claiming enhanced land value at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per cent. We have heard the submissions of Sri.R.Surendran, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleader for the LAA.No.301/2005 2 state. We have also heard Sri.P.K.Vijayamohanan, learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority. Sri.Surendran would place before us a certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.66/1998 of the same court authored by another learned Judge. He submitted that the above judgment pertains to acquisition for the same purpose and in respect of the very same common award. The land acquisition officer had awarded land value at the same rate of Rs. 3,770/- to the appellant and to the claimants in L.A.R.No.66/1998. The land value was refixed at Rs. 10,000/-. He further submitted that against the judgment in L.A.R.No.66/98 the state preferred L.A.A.No.441/2007 before this court and this court dismissed the appeal on merits confirming the refixation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per cent by the reference court. He submitted that even on the principles of Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is necessary that the petitioner whose property was treated by the land acquisition officer to have the same value as the property in L.A.R.No.66/98 is given the value refixed by the reference court in L.A.R.No.66/98 as confirmed by this court in appeal. 3. Though the submissions of Sri.Surendran were resisted by LAA.No.301/2005 3 Sri.P.K.Babu and Sri.P.K.Vijayamohanan, they did not dispute that the judgment in L.A.R.No.66/98 was approved by this court by judgment in the appeal. According to us, the appellant is voicing a legitimate grievance. When her property and the property of the claimants in L.A.R.No.66/98 was acquired under the very same award and the same rate was granted by the land acquisition officer, it is only just and proper that she is also awarded the same rate as is now finally fixed by this court in the judgment in appeal against L.A.R.No.66/1998. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal will stand allowed. In modification of the judgment and decree under appeal, the market value of the acquired land is refixed at Rs. 10,000/- ( rupees ten thousand) per cent. The appellant will be entitled for enhanced compensation on the basis of such refixation. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23( 1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation which becomes admissible to him on the basis of the above refixation. The appellant will not be entitled for the full costs, but she will be entitled for the Advocate fees which is LAA.No.301/2005 4 admissible for this appeal as per the Rules relating to payment of Advocate fees. The Government is directed to suffer its costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.301/2005 5