IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 1567 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.89/1996 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- CHANDY JOSEPH, PARAMBATHU KUMMANNUR KARA, KIDANGOOR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.1567 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 Judgment Balakrishnan, J. The claimant is in appeal. An extent of 5.65 Ares of dry land and 5.15 Ares of low lying land comprised in survey No.162/8 in Kidangoor village, Meenachil taluk was acquired for widening Ettumanoor-Erattupetta road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.14,280/- per Are for the dry land and Rs.2347/- per Are for the low lying land, i.e., Rs.5780/- per cent for the dry land and Rs.950/- per cent for the low lying land. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that earlier both the lands were lying as a compact plot and on account of the fact that clay was removed from a portion of the land for manufacturing bricks, the said portion became a low lying land. It was argued that the court below ought to have given the same rate for the low lying land as granted for the dry land. 2. In this case, the reference court on an earlier occasion enhanced the land value by 100%. Appeals were filed against the LAA 1567/07 2 said fixation by the claimant as well as by the respondent. As per the common judgment, this court set aside the judgment passed by the reference court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. After remand, the court below refixed the land value for the dry land at the rate of Rs.21280/- per Are (corresponding to Rs.8814/- per cent) and Rs.4347/- per Are (corresponding to Rs.1760/- per cent) for the low lying land. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in respect of the adjacent land covered by the very same notification and acquired for the same purpose, this court refixed the land value for the dry land at Rs.19,000/- per cent and so the land value may be refixed accepting the refixation done in L.A.A.No.223 of 2001. 2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the land value, in the judgment referred to by the appellant, was originally fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.6067/- per cent (corresponding to Rs.15,000/- per Are). It is more than the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixed in respect of the dry land involved in this case. Therefore, the same value cannot be given in this case. It can be seen from the judgment in L.A.A.No.223 of 2001 that the land value was enhanced almost by 200%. If that ratio is maintained, the appellant would LAA 1567/07 3 be entitled to much more what is claimed in this appeal. The appellant has in this appeal sought enhancement by Rs.3000/- per cent. Since the enhancement claimed is only to that extent, the appellant is entitled to the land value at the rate of Rs.11,611/- per cent, in respect of 5.65 Ares (corresponding to 13.961 cents) of dry land. To that extent, the claim is allowed. 3. As regards the low lying lands, if we accept the same ratio as mentioned earlier, the claimant would be entitled to get the land value fixed at Rs.2880/- per cent. However, considering all the aspects, we feel that the value of 5.15 Ares (corresponding to 12.725 cents) of low lying land can be refixed at Rs.3100/- per cent. The land value is fixed as stated above. 4. The appellant is entitled to get all the statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The appeal is allowed as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. srd N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. LAA 1567/07 4 LAA 1567/07 5