IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 LA.App..No. 878 of 2006-D ------------------------- LAR.182/1992 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- AJAN T.K., S/O.THANKAPPAN, KIZHAKKEBHAVAN, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN SRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== L.A.A. NO. 878 OF 2006 ============================ Dated this the 23rd day of September 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The appellant is the claimant before the court below under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Briefly put, the case of the appellant is as follows: 2. An extent of 5.50 Ares of land in Sy.No.4585/2, 0.97 Ares of land in Sy.No.3837/6 and 0.04 Ares of land in Sy.No.3837/4 in Block No.IV of Vadakkevila Village in Kollam Taluk were acquired under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The possession of the property was taken on 24/3/1990. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed Rs.1090/- per Are for the land which was used as a road (it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said land can be taken as 0.04 Ares in extent), Rs.9176/- per Are for the reclaimed wet LAA. 878/2006 -2- land and dry land, i.e. for an extent of 5.50 Ares and 0.97 Ares. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant filed a petition before the Land Acquisition officer to refer the matter for adjudication to get enhanced compensation. The Reference Court enhanced the land value at Rs.5,505.60 per Are over and above the compensation awarded by the land Acquisition officer. It is being dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant is before us. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. Though, a dispute is raised regarding the extent of land, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant would be satisfied with the land value which was approved by this court in connected appeals being applied. The undisputed extent and the type of land are as follows: 5. 0.04 Ares of land are being used for road. 5.50 Ares of land are characterised as reclaimed wet land and 0.97 Ares of land is shown as dry land. 6. As already noticed, though the Land Acquisition officer has awarded Rs.9,176/- per Are for an extent of 5.50 Ares shown LAA. 878/2006 -3- as reclaimed wet land and 0.97 Ares of dry land, i.e. total 6.47 land, the Reference court has enhanced the land value at Rs.5,505.60 per Are over and above the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition officer. It is common case that in L.A.A.No.642/2004 and connected appeals, this Court has fixed the land value at Rs.13,500/- per cent. This, according to the appellant, is equivalent of Rs.33,345/- per Are. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the applicability of the said rate to the extent of 6.47 Ares of land, consisting of 5.50 Ares of reclaimed wet land and 0.97 Ares categorised as dry land. In fact, the said land value was fixed in respect of lands covered by a notification issued prior to the date of notification issued in this case, viz. 19/3/1988. In such circumstances, we see no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to the same. The appellant would be entitled to get the land value at Rs.33,345/- per Are for 6.47 Ares of land which is described as above. Consequently, we allow the appeal and direct that the appellant is entitled to realise further sum of Rs.18,663.40 per Are for 6.47 Ares acquired from the appellant as already referred to in the judgment. The appellant would also be entitled to solatium on LAA. 878/2006 -4- the enhanced amount and interest on solatium. The appellant is also entitled to other statutory benefits including interest. Appellant will be entitled to the proportionate costs in the appeal. Sd/- K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE