IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1401 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.11/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): B-RESPONDENT -------------------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMA ROAD, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR S.DANDAPAT (NOW OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.1/631/A, KANNADIKADU AREA, MARADU.P.O. KOCHI-682304.) BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND A-RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- 1. V.P.KURIAN, S/O. LATE V.A.POTHEN, VADAKKEKKALAM HOUSE, EAST OF CONVENT JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. V.P.ABRAHAM, S/O.LATE.V.A.POTHEN VADAKKEKKALM HOUSE, EAST OF CONVENT JN.,ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.P.KURIAN, S/O. LATE V.A.POTHEN VADAKKEKKALAM HOUSE, EAST OF CONVENT JN., ALAPPUZHA. 3. MONSY POTHEN W/O. LATE.V.A.POTHEN VADAKKEKKALAM HOUSE, EAST OF CONVENT JN.,ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.P.KURIAN, S/O. LATE.V.A.POTHEN VADAKKEKKALAM HOUSE,EAST OF CONVENT JN., ALAPPUZHA. 4. ANNIE MATHEW, D/O. LATE.V.A.POTHEN VADAKKEKKALAM HOUSE, EAST OF CONVENT JN., ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.P.KURIAN, S/O.LATE V.A.POTHEN, VADAKKEKKALAM HOUSE, EAST OF CONVENT JN., ALAPPUZHA. 5. BEENA THOMAS, D/O. LATE V.A.POTHEN, VADAKKEKKALAM HOUSE, EAST OF CONVENT JN., ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.P.KURIAN, S/O. LATE V.A.POTHEN, VADAKKEKKALAM HOUSE, EAST OF CONVENT JN., ALAPPUZHA. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) GENERAL, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN FOR R6 SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1401 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The requisitioning authority is in appeal. The acquisition was of property in Mullackal village of Alappuzha District. The property was acquired for setting up of a water terminal and for widening the waterway at the behest of the appellant the requisitioning authority viz. Inland Waterways Authority of India. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs.54,536/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment considered the evidence that came on record and refixed the value of land at Rs.1,00,000/- per Are. 2. It is fairly conceded by Sri.V.Santharam, learned standing counsel for the appellant that this Court by judgment in L.A.A. No.1477/2009 has approved the enhancement of value of identical lands from Rs.54,536/- per Are to Rs.1 Lakh per Are. The learned counsel submits that this case involves large extents of property i.e. 64.46 Ares. He draws our attention to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Atma Singh (dead) through LAA.No.1401/2009 2 LRs and Others v. State of Haryana and another ((2008) 2 SC 568)) and various other cases. The learned counsel submitted that the principle, which emerges from those decisions, is that a different standard is to be adopted when a large extent of property is acquired. We find some merit in the above submission of the learned counsel. 3. Sri.M.K.Chandra Mohandas, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that compensation amount was due to the various claimants/respondents in separate shares. Hence, in his opinion the property under acquisition had to be treated as different holdings of which case it will be seen that extent is not so much. 4. We are not impressed by the arguments of Sri.Chandra Mohandas. Going by the award, the property was a single holding possessed by various claimants/respondents. Under these circumstances, we feel that there is justification for making a deduction of 10% from the value which we have approved for small extents. Hence, we allow the appeal to the limited extent of refixing market value of land under acquisition at Rs.90,000/- per Are. It is needless to mention that the LAA.No.1401/2009 3 appellant/claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this appeal. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk