IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No.878 of 2007 (D) --------------------------------- LAR.67/2003 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PERUMPILLIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.BINU.B.SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.878 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This is an appeal by the claimant and there is no doubt in our mind that this appeal is to be allowed. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Kumaramangalam Village for the purpose of construction of 4 line by-pass road namely Vengalloor- Mangattukavala Road. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 01/06/99. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.16,300/- per Are. The Reference Court on the basis of the evidence which came on record re-fixed the land value at Rs.50,255/- per cent. We had occasion to deal with other cases pertaining to the very same L. A. A. No.878 of 2007 -2- acquisition in respect of properties falling within other categories. In fact, in L.A.A.1638/07 which was in another case pertaining to the same acquisition, we treated the property in that case as properties in “Group-1 A Dry” as the property in the present case. Relying on our own judgment in State of Kerala v. Jose Simon (2009 (1) KLT, 760) and the entire materials which are available in this case, we re-fixed the land value of the properties in that case at Rs.65,000/-. 2. Smt.Sudha Babu argued that the property under acquisition in this case was in fact superior to all other properties covered by the very same acquisition and that therefore, the property under acquisition should be awarded higher value than other properties. But we notice that the claim of the appellant all along L. A. A. No.878 of 2007 -3- has been for Rs.54,301/- per cent only. We uphold that claim in full and re-fix land value at Rs.54,301/-. We also notice that the appellant has a claim for Rs.6,000/- more towards structure value. The above claim, according to us, is reasonable and we award that claim. Thus, the appellant will get a further amount towards structure value to the extent of Rs.6,000/- more. 3. This appeal will stand allowed as above. 4. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhancement to which he becomes eligible by virtue of the re-fixation of land value done under this judgment and our award of amounts towards structure also. But, in the circumstances, L. A. A. No.878 of 2007 -4- parties are directed to suffer their costs in the appeal. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-