IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 347 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.1038/2005 Dated 23/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.VASU, S/O.CHOYI, KUTHIKA VALAPPU, OPP.GASIL MASJID, THALANGARA,KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER S.RAMA CHANDRAN, S/O.SANKARAN VAIDYAR, RESIDING AT THALANGARA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISION, KINFRA, KASARAGOD. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KASARAGOD. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 347 of 2010 in LAA. No.1038 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant appellant seeks review of our judgment fixing the market value of the lands under Acquisition at Rs.2500/- per cent on the ground that an observation which we have made in our judgment is wrong. In our judgment we had made an observation that in all probability the rate of Rs.3000/- per cent fixed under Ext.A1, a document which we found to be a dependable one was fixed after the relevant Section 4(1) notification. Annexure - I produced along with the RP will certainly show that the rate in Ext.A1 was filed some three years prior to the Section 4(1) notification. The argument of Mr.D.Krishnaprasad, counsel for the review petitioner is that in the light of Annexure - I, the R.P. be allowed in full and the market value of land be re-fixed at Rs.3000/- per cent. Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, senior RP.347/10 -2- Govt. Pleader does not agree. He drew our attention to the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner's report. He submitted that the Advocate Commissioner who compared A1 property with the property under acquisition had clearly reported that A1 property is far superior to the property under acquisition. On re-appreciating the evidence we find that the Commissioner had submitted a clear report to the effect that in terms of nearness to Seethangoli Town the property covered by A1 situated in a much more advantageous position than the property under acquisition which situated about 1.9 kilometres away from Seethangoli Town. We therefore reiterate our view that the appellant cannot be granted the value reflected in A1. At the same time, with reference to A1, we feel there is justification for re-fixing the value of the land at Rs.2600/- per cent. The RP is allowed to the extent of re-fixing the value of land under acquisition RP.347/10 -3- at Rs.2600/- per cent. Needless to mention that the review petitioner will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the basis of the present re-fixation under this order. The RP is allowed to the above extent, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ksv/-