IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1204 of 2002() -------------------------- LAR.479/1993 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. SOSAMMA VARGHESE, PAYIKKATTU HOUSE, CHEPPAD. 2. DAVIDSON VARGHESE, PAYIKKATTU HOUSE, CHEPPAD 3. SHEELA JOSEPH, PAYIKKATTU HOUSE, CHEPPAD. 4. ANNAMMA PHILIP, PAYIKKATTU HOUSE, CHEPPAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 1204 OF 2002 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their lands were acquired for the purpose of the NTPC in their project at Kayamkulam. The L.A. Officer treated 4.05 Ares from out of the lands under acquisition as reclaimed land and the entire remainder portion as wet lands. However, value at the rate of Rs.2,200/- per Are was uniformly granted for these properties and certain amounts were paid towards reclamation charges for the reclaimed portion of the land. Under the impugned judgment the learned Subordinate Judge re-fixed value of the land under acquisition at Rs.4,800-. The ground which is mainly raised in the appeal is that the value re-fixed for wet lands is inadequate and that the court below erred in treating 4.05 Ares conceded by the L.A. Authority to be reclaimed land as only wet lands. LAA. N0. 1204/02 -2- 2. Having regard to the submissions of Mr. Sasikumar, counsel for the appellant and those of Smt. Latha K.Anand, counsel for the requisitioning authority and Sri.Basant Balaji, senior Govt. Pleader we feel that the appellant is entitled to relief to a certain extent. The appellant is justified in claiming a higher value for that portion of the land extending to 4.05 Ares at least treated by the L.A. Officer as reclaimed land. On the evidence there is justification for fixing value of that portion of the land (4.05 of land noted in the judgment itself as reclaimed land) at Rs.7,500/- per Are. Similarly, in the case of wet lands also we feel that there is justification for granting some more enhancement. Modifying the judgment under appeal we re- fix value of wet lands at Rs.5,500/-. It is decreed accordingly. However, whatever amount was paid to the appellant towards reclamation charges will be deducted from the total compensation for which the claimants become LAA. N0. 1204/02 -3- eligible by virtue of the re-fixation of land value done under this judgment. But it is made clear that the claimants will be entitled to all statutory benefits otherwise admissible under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ksv/- LAA. N0. 1204/02 -4- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. LAA. No. 1204 OF 2002 JUDGMENT 26th August, 2009