IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No.998 of 2007(D) ------------------------------- LAR.402/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- N.T.P.C.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER(HR), KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS/1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SMT. SARASWATHI AMMA, POROORKIZHAKKEDATHU, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.(EXPIRED) 2. SREEKUMAR, VALLAYATHU VEETTIL, FROM POROORKIZHAKKEDATHU VEEDU, AYIKKATTUMOOLA MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. JAYASREE, VALLYATHU VEETTIL, FROM POROORKIZHAKKEDATHU VEEDU, AYIKKATTUMOOLA MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. (REPRESENTED BY THEIR P/A HOLDER, SOMAN PILLAI, MULAVANA VEETTIL, THEKKEKARA KIZHAKKUM MURI, PALLIPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. LA.App..No.998 of 2007(D) 2 4. 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 R2 & R3 SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR FOR R2 & R3 SRI.T.D.PARAMESWARAN UNNI FOR R2 & R3 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.998 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The Requisitioning Authority is in appeal. the case pertains to acquisition of land in Chingoli village. The acquisition of land was for the purpose of the appellant/Requisitioning Authority's Kayamkulam Project. The Land Acquisition Officer included the properties under acquisition in categories 4 and 5 treating the entire property to be wetlands without road frontage and with road frontage. But the learned Subordinate Judge has found that a portion of properties was actually dry land eligible to be included in category-2. We approve the above decision of the L. A. A. No.998 of 2007 -2- learned Subordinate Judge since we are also convinced from the evidence that a portion of the properties was actually dry lands which had several yielding coconut trees and other trees standing on the same. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment re-fixed the value of such dry lands at Rs.20,000/- per Are. We approve the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in that regard. But when it came to wet lands under acquisition what the learned Subordinate Judge did was to fix the value of wet lands at 50% of the value awarded for the dry lands. This action, we are unable to approve. According to us, it is not the correct ratio maintained between the dry lands and wet lands which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. On a better assessment, the value of the wet lands under L. A. A. No.998 of 2007 -3- acquisition will stand re-fixed at Rs.7,000/-. We do so. To that extent, the appeal will stand allowed. It is needless to mention that on the total enhanced compensation to which the claimants become eligible by virtue of our re-fixation, they will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23 (1A) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-