IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 1373 of 2005() -------------------------- LAR.65/1999 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (HR), KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANTS/1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- 1. SRI.SREEKUMAR, S/O.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN PILLAI, POROOR KIZHAKKEDATHU VEEDU, AYIKKATTUMOOLA MURI,CHINGOLI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A.) NO.III,S.T.P.S.HARIPAD, (1ST RESPONDENT IN THE L.A.R.) ADV. SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA ,J. ------------------------- L.A.A No. 1373 of 2005 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Appellant is the requisitioning authority. An extent of 3.59 Ares of wet land in Sy.No.607/20 of Chingoli Village owned by the claimant/respondent was acquired as per notification dated 2.11.1996 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Possession was taken on 19.12.1995. An award was passed on 30.7.1997 fixing the compensation to the tune of `.9936/- at the rate of `. 2039/- per Are. The amount was received under protest and the claimant/respondent sought for a reference. 2. Evidence was adduced. AW1 was examined on behalf of the claimant. No evidence was adduced on the side of appellant or the State. On consideration of the evidence in detail, the court below enhanced the value of the property from `.2039/- to `.10,000/-. (Thus the enhanced value is `.7961/-). The said enhancement is challenged in this appeal. 3. Heard both sides. Perused records. Learned counsel appellant submitted that enhancement given is L.A.A No. 1373 of 2005 2 more than 300%. It is also submitted that Division Bench of this Court in various decisions have stated that in these types of cases only 200% enhancement can be given. No specific decision was cited. Learned counsel for claimant submitted that there is no such decision. 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimant. Learned counsel for appellant herself submitted that no such dictum as such is laid down by the Division Bench that in a case of this nature, enhancement should be restricted to 200%. She has conceded that in no case Division Bench specifically laid down that compensation has to be restricted to 200%. The only point argued at the time of hearing is on restriction to 200% which is only to be rejected. Hence I find that there is no merit in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge L.A.A No. 1373 of 2005 3 L.A.A No. 1373 of 2005 4