IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 408 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.226/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT(S): (CLAIMANT) ------------------------ YESODAYAMMA GIRIJAMMA,THEKKECHEKKANATTU PALLIPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.H.RAMANAN SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) SRI.JAMES JOSE RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS) ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA)INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE,CHERTHALA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 ADV.SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A..No.408 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The ground which is prominently raised by the appellant in this appeal is that the land acquisition officer and the reference court went wrong in treating the acquired property as property included in category No.3 namely interior dry land without road frontage. Sri.H.R.Ramanan, learned counsel for the appellant has very persuasively submitted before us that the Commissioner's report will reveal that the distance between Cherthala-Arookutty main road and the acquired property is only 50 meters. According him, in view of the nearness of the appellant's property to the main road, the property should have been included in category No.2 and granted higher value on that basis. 2. We are unable to accept the submission of Sri.Ramanan. The categorisation adopted by the land acquisition officer in these cases was approved by this court in a large number of cases pertaining LAA.No.408/09 2 to acquisition for the same purpose and pursuant to the same notification. Category No.3 as per the award of the officer was interior dry land without any road frontage, while category No.2 was dry land enjoying direct frontage of the Panchayat road. Even though the Commissioner's report supports the submission of Sri.Ramanan that the acquired property was situated at a distance of 50 meters from the main road in the locality, the fact remains that the property did not enjoy the direct frontage of the Panchayat road or for that matter any other road. This being the position, it is difficult to accept the argument of Sri.Ramanan that the acquired property should have been included in category No.2 and not in category No.3. As for the enhancement granted for the properties treating them in category No.3, it is to be noticed that such enhancement has been approved by this court in a large number of other cases. The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.408/09 2 Judgment dated 26/05/2009 in L.A.A.408/2009 is recalled and a revised judgment is passed by refixing the market value at Rs.19,000/- per Are as per order dated 13/07/2010 in R.P.518/2010 in L.A.A.No.408/2009. Sd/- Registrar ( Judicial) LAA.No.408/09 2