IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 925 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.36/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. POULO, S/O. CHAKKAPPAN, PADAYATTY HOUSE, NAYATHODE, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. (DIED) 2. YACOB, S/O. POULO, PADAYATTY (PARAVOOKKARAN), NEAR SIX CENT COLONY, NAYATHODE P.O. 3. JOSE, S/O. POULO, PADAYATTY (PARAVOOKARAN), NEAR KATTING, AYYAMPUZHA P.O. 4. DEVASSYKUTTY, S/O. POULO, PADAYATTY (PARAVOOKARAN), NEAR KATTING, AYYAMPUZHA P.O. 5. VARGHESE, S/O. POULO, PADAYATTY (PARAVOOKARAN), NEAR KATTING, AYYAMPUZHA P.O. 6. POLLY, S/O. POULO, PADAYATTY (PARAVOOKKARAN), NEAR KATTING, AYYAMPUZHA P.O. 7. URUMESE, S/O. POULO, PADAYATTY (PARAVOOKARAN), NEAR KATTING, AYYAMPUZHA P.O. LA.App..No. 925 of 2007() -2- 8. JOY, S/O. POULO, PADAYATTY (PARAVOOKKARAN), NEAR KATTING, AYYAMPUZHA P.O. 9. MARIYAM, W/O. POULO, PADAYATTY (PARAVOOKKARAN), NEAR KATTING, AYYAMPUZHA P.O. 10. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEDUMBASSERY, ANGAMALY. ADV. SMT.ROSE MICHAEL FOR R8 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1O SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, COCHIN I AIRPORT LT FOR R1O GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. GOPINATHAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- L.A.A.No.925 OF 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated 19th August, 2011 J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by State, challenging the award passed by reference court under Land Acquisition Act. The Extent of property involving is 2.59 Ares. The enhanced land value was fixed at Rs.2,925/- per Are for the property having an extent of 2.59 Ares with interest solatium etc. 2. Learned Government Pleader submitted that this 65% of increased compensation was awarded by reference court in this case whereas in respect of other properties which are covered by same notification in the same survey number, only 45% of increase was granted by reference court. In L.A.R.209/2000, reference court awarded 96% enhancement where as in LAA.235 of 2000 only 45% of enhancement was given. State filed appeal challenging 96% increase as L.A.A.654 of 2001 and claimant filed an appeal as L.A.A.1015 of 2005, challenging inadequacy of the increase. The awards were set aside and the cases were L.A.A. No.925/07 2 remanded. After the remand, the reference court granted only 45% increase in compensation, but no appeal is filed by claimant and matter has become final. Therefore, this appeal may be admitted, it is submitted. 3. Learned counsel for 10th respondent, Requisitioning Authority submitted that 105 cases arose from the same acquisition under the same notification. In all the cases, 65% of enhancement was granted and those were accepted by Requisitioning Authority and amount was also paid. It was also pointed out, in another case, L.A.R.9 of 2001 reference court granted 65% enhancement and State filed appeal as L.A.A.1531 of 2005 and the case was remanded by this court, as per order dated 15.10.2007. After the remand, increase was fixed at 65% as per award dated 31.7.2006. The said increase was accepted by requisitioning authority and amount was also paid. The judgment in LAR.9 of 2001 is relied upon in the present case, based on which 65% increase was granted. 4. The claimant also supported these contentions and learned counsel for claimant argued that only because the claimants did not choose to challenge the award in the cases L.A.A. No.925/07 3 referred to by learned Government Pleader, it cannot be said that the reference court committed any illegality in fixing compensation relying upon an award which is confirmed by this court. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by the respondents and I find that there is no merit in the appeal. This appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou. // True copy // P.A. to Judge