IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 419 of 2008(D) -------------------------- LAR.407/2003 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------ 1. A. KRISHNAMMA, S/O. LATE KRISHNAN SASASIVAN, KANIYANKARA VALIYA VEETTIL, VAYYAMOOLA MURI, PALKULANGARA VILLAGE. 2. K.S. AIYA DEVI, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, KARIKKAKOM, BEACH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.S. INDIRA DEVI, CHEENIVILA ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KAMUKUMCODE, KODANGAVILA P.O. 4. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, KANIYANKARA VALIYA VEETTIL, VAYYAMOOLA MURI, PALKULANGARA VILLAGE. 5. K.S. SASIKUMAR, KANIYANKARA VALIYA VEETTIL, VAYYAMOOLA MURI, PALKULANGARA VILLAGE. 6. K.S. GIRI RAJ, KANIYANKARA VALIYA VEETTIL, VAYYAMOOLA MURI, PALKULANGARA VILLAGE. 7. K.S. BABURAJ, KANIYANKARA VALIYA VEETTIL, VAYYAMOOLA MURI, PALKULANGARA VILLAGE. 8. K.S. JAYACHANDRAN, KANIYANKARA VALIYA VEETTIL, VAYYAMOOLA MURI, PALKULANGARA VILLAGE. 9. K.S. SIVAPRASAD, KANIYANKARA VALIYA VEETTIL, VAYYAMOOLA MURI, PALKULANGARA VILLAGE. 10. K.S. USHA DEVI, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, T.C.36/1164, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA (SPL.TAHSILDAR, LA, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (DELETED AND SUBSTITUTED) THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU DELETED AND SUBSTITUTED BY AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VIDE ORDER DATED 6-8-2009. THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS DELETED AND “THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY C/O INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM” IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 VIDE ORDER DT. 7-9-2009 IN LAA. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 SRI.V.SANTHARAM FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 420 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ LAA. Nos. 419 & 420 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimants are the appellants in these cases. The properties were in Pettah Village. The acquisition was for the purpose of the International Airport Authority. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 4-2-1999. The L.A. Officer included the lands under acquisition in category No. V, i.e., wet lands partly converted into dry lands forming bunds and cultivated with coconut trees but surrounded by water in the low lying areas between bunds at Block No.2, Chakkai. Before the reference court the claimants produced Ext.A1 sale deed and Ext.A2 judgment. Ext.A1 sale deed was rejected by the learned Sub Judge on the reason that on the property covered by that sale deed, there existed a very substantial building which was not separately valued. Ext.A2 judgment was also rejected for the reason that LAA. 419 & 420 of 2008 - 2 - Ext.A2 pertains to lands in category – IV which even according to the L.A. Officer's award was two times valuable than the lands under acquisition. Smt.Zohara, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lands under acquisition were eligible to be included in category – IV or in a still higher category. She also submitted that the court below did not award the additional amount under section 23 (1A) during the entire period mentioned in the statute. 2. All the submissions of Smt.Zohara were resisted effectively by Mr.Basant Balaji, Senior Govt. Pleader. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have made a quick re-appraisal of the evidence. We are of the view that the court below was perfectly justified in not placing reliance on Exts.A1 and A2. Once A1 and A2 are eschewed from consideration we don't find any tangible legal evidence in support of the appellant's claim for enhancement. As for the arguments of the learned counsel that the properties LAA. 419 & 420 of 2008 - 3 - were enjoying the direct frontage of the road and that they were dry lands, we do not find any acceptable evidence such as reports by local inspection commissioners. In the absence of such acceptable evidence, it is difficult to accept the argument. As for the complaint of the learned counsel that the appellants were not awarded the additional amount calculated at 12% under Section 23(1A) during the entire period from the date of Section 4(1) notification till date of the award, the land acquisition officer's explanation is that during the period for which the amounts were not awarded the acquisition proceedings were under stay. On going through the records we find that during certain periods the land acquisition proceedings were under stay and this was why amount under Section 23 (1A) was not granted during the period of stay. It is also seen that willingness was expressed in writing by the claimants later. The claimants were awarded amounts under Section 23(1A) also till the LAA. 419 & 420 of 2008 - 4 - date of passage of the award from the date of expression of willingness. Despite the very persuasive submissions of Smt.Zohara we do not find any infirmity in the judgments impugned. Mr.Basant Balaji would point out that in LAR. No. 408 of 2003 a mistake has been committed while mentioning the dates for the purpose of award of interest under Section 28. We give opportunity to the Government to move the learned Sub Judge for appropriate corrections invoking Sections 152 and 153 of the Code. Appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-