IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 439 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.248/1994 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- K.MADHAVAN, 'SREEKALA', HOUSE NO.11/81, NEAR NIRMITHIKENDRAM, THALAKULATHUR. BY ADV. SMT.RESHMI DAMODARAN,T RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A.), N.H. NO., KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 439 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. His property situated in Elathur Village within the area of the Calicut Corporation was acquired for the purpose of the Calicut byepass. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 24-8- 1992. The LAO awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4500/- per cent. The reference court in the first instance re-fixed the land value at Rs.6000/-. In appeal preferred by the appellant claimant the matter was remanded and the impugned judgment has been passed after remand. Under the impugned judgment the land value has been re-fixed at Rs.12,500/-. 2. In this appeal, the appellant has raised various grounds challenging what is described as inadequacy of the compensation granted by the reference court and LAA. 439/09 - 2 - Smt.Resmi Damodaran, learned counsel for the appellant has addressed us on the basis of all those grounds. All the submissions of Smt. Resmi Damodaran were resisted by Smt. Latha T.Thankappan. Smt. Resmi Damodaran submitted that the court below went wrong in not relying on Ext.A3 judgment. Smt. Latha T.Thankappan submitted that A3 judgment relied on by the claimant has not attained finality. She however, conceded that in another case pertaining to acquisition of land in the very same village and for the same purpose, but pursuant to a notification of the year 1993, one year after the present Section 4(1) notification, this court has approved the land value of Rs.18,000/- per cent. We are of the view that the above judgment can be made a basis and the value of the land under acquisition in the present case can be re-fixed at Rs.17,000/- per cent. In modification of the impugned judgment we re-fix the value of the land under acquisition LAA. 439/09 - 3 - at Rs.17,000/- per cent. 3. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent, but without any order as to cost. It is made clear that the claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23 (1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-