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 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1780 of 2007(D) --------------------------- LAR.138/2000 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------ 1. MOHANAKUMAR, S/O.M.K.RAMAN PILLAI, T.C.35/5, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VAYYAMOOLA, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. USHAKUMARI, W/O. MOHANAKUMAR, T.C.35/5, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VAYYAMOOLA, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (DELETED) (THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE PARTY ARRAY IS SUO MOTU DELETED AND FOLLOWING PARTY IS IMPLEADED. ) ADDL.R3. THE AIRPORT AUTHOIRTY OF INDIA, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM. VIDE ORDER DATED 27/7/2009. . THE ORDER DATED 27/7/2009 IS SUO MOTU REVIVED AND ADDL. R3 IS DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AND THE FOLLOWING RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED. TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, C/O. INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. VIDE ORDER DATED 26/8/2009) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 79 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos. 1780/2007 & 79/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 9thday of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Both these are appeals filed by the claimants and they are not satisfied by the award of enhanced compensation by the reference court. The property in L.A.A. No.1780/2007 was included in category No.6 and the property in L.A.A. No.79/2008 was included in category 8 by the Land Acquisition Officer in these cases, which pertains to acquisition for the purpose of Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Authority. For properties in category 6, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.74,145/- per Are. Under the judgment impugned in L.A.A. No.1780/2007, the reference court refixed the same at Rs. 1,00,000/- per Are, whereas, for the properties in category 8, the learned Sub Judge, under the judgment which is impugned in L.A.A. No.79/2008, refixed the land value at Rs.75,000/- per Are. 2. We have heard the submissions of Smt.M.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the claimants and those of Sri.Basant Balaji, L.A.A.No.1780/2007 & 79/2008 2 learned senior Government Pleader for the State as well as for the requisitioning authority. 3. Smt.Hemalatha would draw our attention to Annexure I judgment produced along with I.A. No. 2737/2009. Annexure I is the judgment of the same Sub Court in L.A.R. No.195/2000. Smt.Hemalatha submitted that the property covered by Annexure I was included in category 8 and the learned Subordinate Judge under Annexure 1 has refixed the value of those lands at Rs.1,50,000/- per Are. According to her, L.A.A. No.79/2008 should be allowed by refixing the value of land at Rs.1,50,000/- and a proportionate increase should be given for the lands involved in L.A.A. No.1780/2007. 4. The submissions of Smt.Hemalatha were stiffly resisted by the learned Government Pleader. He submitted that before the court below, claimants relied on Ext.A2 judgment. Under Ext.A2, the value of properties in category 6 was refixied at Rs.1,00,000/-. The request before the reference court was that value of properties in category 6 be refixed at Rs.1,00,000/-. That request was completely granted by the reference court. That being so, it is not open to the appellants to claim that they L.A.A.No.1780/2007 & 79/2008 3 should be granted more than that. Smt.Hemalatha submitted in reply that many other parties, whose lands also included in category 8, have been awarded land value at Rs. 1,50,000/- based on Annexure 1 and the judgment of the reference court relying on Annexure 1. Unless this court grants enhancement as requested by the appellants, resulting situation will be that equals are treated unequally. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.1348/2008. That is a case where we confirmed refixation of land value in category 6 from Rs.78743/- to Rs.1 00,000/-. Of course under that judgment, we have also noticed that in one case this court refused to interfere with the refixation of land value from Rs. 78,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. But the question is whether the appellants in these cases should be allowed the benefit of Annexure 1 judgment. It is submitted by the learned senior Government Pleader that the Government intends to prefer an appeal against Annexure I along with the application for condonation of delay. Even if Annexure 1 had attained finality, it would have been difficult for this court to grant enhancement to L.A.A.No.1780/2007 & 79/2008 4 the appellants in L.A.A. No.1780/2007 over and above what is granted under the impugned judgment because before the reference court the claim was based on Ext.A2 and under the impugned judgment enhancement as per Ext.A2 has been granted. We are, therefore, not inclined to allow the I.A or the appeal. Both I.A. as well as L.A.A. 1780/2007 will, therefore, stand dismissed. 6. Coming to L.A.A. No.79/2009, we feel that the reference court ought to have maintained the ratio maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between the value of properties in categories 6 and 8. Going by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the value of properties in category 8 was 85% of the value of properties in category 6. When the reference court granted 35% increase for properties in category 6, that court ought to have granted a similar increase for properties in category 8 also. Therefore, in our opinion, the value of the properties in L.A.A. 79/2009 is to be refixed at Rs.85,000/- per Are. We order accordingly. L.A.A. 79/2008 will stand allowed to the above extent. It is needless to mention that the claimants will be entitled for all L.A.A.No.1780/2007 & 79/2008 5 statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible on account of our refixation of the land value under this Judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk The judgment dated 09/09/2009 in L.A.A. 79/2008 is recalled vide order dated 29/7/2010 in RP 188/10 in L.A.A. No.79/2008.