IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 1531 of 2007(C) -------------------------------- LAR.49/1998 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- THARUPPARA AYISHAKUTTY, W/O. ALIKUTTY KURUPATH, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA CALICUT AIRPORT, KARIPOOR P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R2 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1531 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose The claimant is in appeal. This is a case where the Reference Court confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer on the reason that the appellant/claimant did not adduce any evidence in support of her claim for enhancement of land value. But we notice the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.911/03 series and find that for identical properties this Court has re-fixed the land value at ` 10,500/- per cent. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority and the learned Senior Government Pleader in the present case, the claim is limited to ` 8,225/- per cent. Hence, we allow this appeal to the extent of re-fixing the market value of the land at ` 8,225/- per cent. We make it clear that on the enhanced compensation, the appellant will be entitled for all statutory L. A. A. No.1531 of 2007 -2- benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the benefit under Section 28 will not be admissible to her during the period of 945 days by which the filing of the appeal was delayed and also during the period of 498 days, the period by which re-presentation of the appeal after curing the defects was delayed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE