IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 974 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.287/2003 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS/1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- 1. K.V. THANKAM AMMA, RETD. PROFESSOR, PAYYANNUR COLLEGE, PAYYANNUR. 2. MARY JAMES, W/O. LATE JAMES V., VADUKOOT HOUSE, POST MATTANNUR, PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANNUR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 3. CLARA PAUL, VADUKOOT HOUSE, POST MATTANNUR, PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANNUR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. REENA PAUL, RESIDING AT VADUKOOT HOUSE, POST MATTANNUR, PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANNUR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR. 5. SEENA PAUL, RESIDING AT VADUKOOT HOUSE, POST MATTANNUR, PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANNUR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, THALASSERY. ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY FOR R2 TO 5 SRI.ANIL GEORGE FOR R2 TO R5 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, ALONG WITH CO NO. 72 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- L. A. A. No. 974 OF 2007 & CROSS OBJECTION NO. 72/2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal and Cross Objection arise from the orders of the Sub Court, enhancing compensation for the land acquired for BSNL from the award amount of Rs. 9296/- per cent to Rs. 35,000/-. After hearing both sides and after going through the records, we find that the basis is Ext.A1 document relied on by the land owners which pertains to sale of an item of property by somebody else to LIC. Appeal is filed by BSNL on the ground that the said document cannot be relied on because the property is 1 KM away and the present site, and is only for construction of residential quarters to employees, and the cross objection is filed for the reason that since the value of land in 1995 per cent was Rs. 32,000/-, enhancement should have been more than Rs. 35,000/- awarded by the Sub Court. We do not find any merit in the contention of both sides for the reason that Sub Court has made increase of Rs. 3000/- to the document value for the property acquired from respondents. Besides this land value is fluctuating and though it increased for some time there is a reverse trend going on. Therefore the increase of Rs. 3,000/- made by the Sub Court from the document amount is fairly reasonable. We find one additional point against the land owners because they delayed acquisition proceedings by obtaining stay against acquisition proceedings for three years. In fact even during the period of stay obtained by them they are getting interest and solatium. We therefore dismiss the appeal and Cross objection. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk