IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 959 of 2010(D) -------------------------- LAR.242/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): LEGAL HEIRS OF THE CLAIMANT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.GEETHA, W/O.LATE DHARMADASAN, AGED 57 YEARS,'AMRUTHALAYAM', 29/2377-B,PIPELINE ROAD, KUTHIRAVATTOM PO, KOZHIKODE-673 016. 2. K.PRASANTH, S/O.LATE DHARMADASAN, AGED 38 YEARS,'AMRUTHALAYAM', 29/2377-B,PIPELINE ROAD, KUTHIRAVATTOM PO, KOZHIKODE-673 016. 3. K.PREMJITH,S/O.LATE DHARMADASAN, AGED 36 YEARS,'AMRUTHALAYAM', 29/2377-B,PIPELINE ROAD, KUTHIRAVATTOM PO, KOZHIKODE-673 016. 4. K.PRAVEEN, S/O.LATE DHARMADASAN, AGED 34 YEARS,'AMRUTHALAYAM', 29/2377-B,PIPELINE ROAD, KUTHIRAVATTOM PO, KOZHIKODE-673 016. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSDILADR (LA), N.H.NO.1,KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKPAAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 959 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. Their properties both garden and wet lands situated in Nellicode Village were acquired pursuant to S.4(1) notification published on 28.5.98. For the garden lands, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded market value at Rs.14,634/- per cent and for the wet lands he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.87,617/- per cent. Under the impugned judgment the reference Court refixed the value of garden land at Rs.40,000/- per cent and that of wet lands at Rs.35,000/- per cent. In this appeal the appellant urges that the market value refixed by the Court for both garden and wet lands is inadequate. Sri. L.A.A. NO. 959 OF 2010 -:2:- P.V.Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant persuasively argued before us on the basis of the judgment of this Court in LAA 1576/07 that under that judgment, for identical lands situated almost adjacent, this Court refixed the value at Rs.65,000/- per cent. He requested that the appeal claim which is for Rs.60,000/- per cent for garden lands be upheld in full. He further requested that the value of wet lands also be proportionately increased to the rate of Rs.35,000/- per cent. The submissions were stiffly resisted by the Senior Government Pleader. She drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in LAA 1045/08. She submitted that under that judgment for exactly identical property, this Court awarded only Rs.55,100/- per cent for the garden land and for similar wet lands this Court awarded only Rs.30,000/- per cent. The maximum enhancement that can be granted for garden land is L.A.A. NO. 959 OF 2010 -:3:- Rs.55,100/- per cent while there is no scope for enhancement in the case of wet lands. 2. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar we find more force in the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. According to us the judgment in LAA 1045/08 is a more probative precedent. Relying on that judgment we allow the appeal to the extent of refixing the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.55,100/- per cent. We are not inclined to grant proportionate increase in respect of wet lands. We notice from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer that value given to wet lands was slightly less than 60% of the value given to the corresponding garden land. Hence in view of the finding under the impugned judgment that value of wet lands at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per cent, we are not interfering with the value of wet land. The present appeal filed by L.A.A. NO. 959 OF 2010 -:4:- the claimant will stand allowed only to the extent of refixing the market value of garden lands as above. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total refixed compensation. However, while making provision for interest under S.28 this Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court by its order dated 17.8.10 in the application for condonation of delay. This means that interest in respect of the period of 2426 days condoned by this Court under the order in the delay petition will not be allowed. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. Sd/-N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/- The words and figure “Rs.87,617/- per cent” occurring in line 7 of paragraph 1 of the judgment dated 09/03/2011 in L.A.A. 959/2010 are corrected and substituted as “Rs.8,761/- per cent” vide order dated 03/10/2011 in I.A.2826/2011 in L.A.A.959/2010.