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 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1241 of 2010() -------------------------- LARC.93/2008 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ KOYYODAN DAMODARAN, S/O.KANNAN, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS SRI.K.M.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1 & 2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1241 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant in a reference under Section 28A(3) is the appellant. The ground prominently raised by the appellant is that the Reference Court went wrong in not relying on the court award, which was relied on by the appellant in a subsequent application under Section 28A, which was filed by him on noticing that no action was being taken on the 28A application filed by him originally. 2. The above ground does not appeal to us. Admittedly, the application under Section 28A filed by the appellant originally was allowed by the Land Acquisition Officer though belatedly. The Land Acquisition Officer, having allowed the application filed by the appellant, could have relied only on the court award relied on in that application. When that is done the market value could have been redetermined only at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent. That is what has been done by the Land LAA.No.1241/2010 2 Acquisition Officer as well as by the Reference Court. 3. The other ground, which is raised by the appellant, is that due statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23 (1A) and 28 of the Act on the redetermined land value has not been awarded. A reading of the operative portion of the impugned judgment will indicate that there is some substance in the above ground raised by the appellant. Hence, we deem it necessary to issue the following clarifications.; It is clarified that the total market value of land due to the appellant will be determined at the rate of Rs.1000/- per cent. On the total market value redetermined as above, the appellant will be entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2). He will also be entitled for an additional amount under Section23(1A) on the market value redetermined during the period from 22.2.1983 till 31/1/1984 at 12%. On the above amount (redetermined market value of land + redetermined solatium), he will be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% during the first year from 13/2/1984 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. It is from the total compensation to be determined as above, that the sum of Rs. 37,225.15/- paid to LAA.No.1241/2010 3 him by the LAO is to be deducted. We dismiss the above appeal subject to the above clarifications. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk