IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 17309 of 2008(I) -------------------------- LAR.373/2005 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER ---------------------- MULIYAN THOTTATHIL BALAN, S/O. AMBU, AGED 65, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, EDAKKEPURAM.P.O, CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEESH THAROL SRI.K.I.SAGEER SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND AQUISITION (NH), KANNUR. 2. STATE GOVERNMENT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 17309 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of September , 2008 JUDGMENT Ext. P2 award of the additional subordinate Judge's court, Thalassery is under challenge in this writ petition instituted by the claimant before that court in L.A.R. No.373/2005. L.A.R. No.373/2005 was a reference under Section 18 of the Act. As could be discerned from Ext.P1 counter statement filed before that court by the Government, the land acquisition officer had fixed the land value for garden lands at the rate of Rs.12,33,477 per hectare and for kaipad land at the rate of Rs.1,74,735/- per hectare corresponding to Rs.4991/- and Rs.707/- per cent respectively. Ext.P2 is impugned on the various grounds including the ground that the mandates of Section 25 of the L.A.Act which provides that the compensation to be redetermined by the court should not be less than the compensation awarded by the Land acquisition Officer having been violated. The learned subordinate judge discussed the petitioner's claim for WPC.No.17309/2008 2 enhancement on land value in paragraphs 7 to 12 of the judgment and concluded at paragraph 13 as follows ; “13. Considering the available evidence, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for a marginal increase. The land value both garden land and kaipad fixing the value for kaipad @ Rs.1000 and garden land @ Rs.3000/- shall be sufficient, in order to compensate the land value. Accordingly the land value for the kaipad is fixed at Rs.1000/- per cent and that the garden land is fixed at Rs.3000/- per cent. “ 2. Elsewhere in paragraph 15 of the judgment, the learned subordinate judge considered the petitioner's claim for enhancement of value given for the structures and gives an increase of 20% on the value awarded towards the structures. Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act places embargo on the power of the reference court in awarding compensation which is WPC.No.17309/2008 3 less than the compensation awarded by the Collector under Section 11. At the same time, it should be noticed that the embargo is regarding the total compensation awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act and the total compensation to be awarded by the court answering the reference under Section 18. There is no embargo in the matter of compensation awarded towards a particular count. Thus it is always open to the court to reduce lesser rate towards the land value if by taking into account the determined value for structure, the total compensation is at a amount higher than the original total compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer. In paragraph 13, the learned subordinate judge has entered a finding that the claimant is entitled for a marginal increase towards the land value. After saying so, the learned judge has refixed the land value for kaipad land at Rs.1000/- which certainly is slightly more than the land value which had been awarded by the land acquisition officer for such lands and the land value for garden land at the rate of Rs.3000/- per cent which is much lesser than the rate granted by the awarding officer for such garden lands. The increase given to the claimant towards WPC.No.17309/2008 4 the value of structures will not be sufficient for making up for the reduction in the total compensation which will be inevitably happen if the value of the garden land is taken as Rs.3,000/- per cent. 3. According to me, mistakes have crept into paragraph 13 of the judgment. Those mistakes can be got corrected by the petitioner by filing necessary application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure since I find those these mistakes have resulted from accidental slips or omission while delivering the judgment and in preparing the decree. There even as I decline to set aside Ext.P1, I dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to apply for correction of paragraph 13 of the judgment Ext.P1. If such a correction petition is filed by the petitioner within one month from today, the learned subordinate judge will entertain the correction petition and pass appropriate orders on the same in the light of the observations herein above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk