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 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1526 of 2008(B) -------------------------------- LAR.58/2007 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------------- 1. E.A.ABDUL KAREEM, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND S/O.HAJI K.A.AHAMMED PILLAI 2. NABEESA T.S., D/O.SAIDALI, EDAKULATH HOUSE, H.NO.50/2144, EDAPPILLY(N)VILLAGE KANAYANNUR TALUK, KUNNUMPURAM SCHOOL STOP, OPP.MOHIYIDEEN JUMA MASJID, EDAPPILLY (N) 682 024. 3. KOULOTH, D/O.AHAMMED PILLAI, -DO-. (ADDL.CLAIMANTS 3 TO 11) 4. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.AHAMMED PILLAI, -DO-. 5. SUBAIDA, D/O.AHAMMED PILLAI, -DO-. 6. FATHIMA, -DO-. 7. SAFFIYA, -DO-. 8. JAMEELA, -DO-. 9. ASMA, -DO-. 10. RAZIA, -DO-. 11. FIROZ ASHAN, S/O.AHAMMED PILLAI, -DO-. BY ADV. SMT.ROSE MICHAEL L.A.A.1526/08 -2- RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H.NO.1, KAKKANAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.BRIDGES DIVISION, VYTTILA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1526 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal by the claimant pertains to acquisition of land in Edappally North village within the area of Cochin Corporation for the purpose of National Highway 17. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 14/03/02. The Reference Court included the property in category No.2 (dry land with direct road frontage of tarred corporation road) and awarded value at the rate of Rs.1,25,400/- per Are. The Reference Court did not rely on any of the documents produced by the appellant. Ultimately applying the rule of thumb the Reference Court granted enhancement by 20%. 2. We have heard submissions of Smt.Rose Michael, L. A. A. No.1526 of 2008 -2- the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.T.T.Josephina the learned Government Pleader. Our attention was drawn by Smt.Rose Michael to judgment of this Court in L.A.A.815/10. We find that the appellant himself was the party to that LAA. We further find that the property under acquisition was in the same village and the acquisition was pursuant to the same notification. But the only difference is that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded slightly higher value to the claimant in that case. Under the above judgment, this Court has re-fixed the value involved in that case at Rs.2,01,600/-. Smt.Josephina, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the property involved in this case is in a different category. True, the property is in a different category. But we find that in terms of value there was not much difference. According to us, reliance can be placed on the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.815/10 and proper enhancement can be granted to the appellant. Taking L. A. A. No.1526 of 2008 -3- into account all relevant inputs, we re-fix the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.2 lakhs per Are. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. 3. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-