IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 562 of 2006 LAR.196/2004 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR APPELLANT: CLAIMANT: ----------------------- A.VAREETH YACOB, KURISUNKAL HOUSE, VAPPALASSERY KARA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.WILSON SMT.ROSE MICHAEL RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, ALONGWITH L.A.NO.564 OF 2006 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NOS.562, 564, 569, 570, 676 OF 2006, 783, 813, 1050, 1168 OF 2007 & 1972 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th October, 2008 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The claimants and State are aggrieved by the fixation of land value by the reference court, Sub Court, North Paravoor. The acquisition is for the Idamalayar Irrigation Project. It is seen that the claimants had rested their claim based on Ext.A1 common judgment in L.A.R.No.165 of 2001 and connected cases. AW1 gave evidence to the effect that the property covered by the present acquisition and Ext.A1 are similar and similarly situated. The reference court also has taken note of the fact that both the properties are covered by the same acquisition pursuant to the same notification. There is no contra evidence for the State. But strangely, the reference court has taken a view that there is no independent evidence. Once the evidence tendered by the claimant to the effect that the property referred to in the appeals and the property covered by the relied on judgment are similar and similarly situated, acquired for the same purpose and pursuant to the same notification, in the absence of any contra evidence, there is no point or justification in discarding the evidence for the only reason that the claimant himself has tendered the evidence. The reference court has also taken note of the fact that in view of the same contentions L.A.A. NO.562 OF 2006 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 2 :: taken by the claimants in the present cases, in Ext.A1 common judgment, the land value has been enhanced by 70%. We also find from the judgment that the reference court has not granted the statutory interest under Section 34 for a period of one year from the date of taking possession at 9% and thereafter at 15%. Therefore, we allow the appeals filed by the claimants holding that they shall be entitled to enhancement of land value to the extent of 70% over and above the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer along with statutory benefits under Section 23(1)(A) and Section 34. There shall be no order as to costs. The party appellants shall pay the balance court fee within two weeks from today and if not, the judgment will stand recalled and the appeals will stand dismissed. The appeals filed by the State are partly allowed to the extent required with regard to the calculation regarding interest, as clarified above. (KURIAN JOSEPH) Judge (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/