IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 593 of 2008 ------------------------- LAR.77/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: -------------------------------- NARAYANAN RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER, AGED 86 YEARS, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, THEENDATHARA, CHERTHALA KIZHAKKUM MURI. BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SPELCIAL TAHSILDAR, [L.A.],INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTER, ALAPPUZHA. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SC, KSIDC FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.593 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal is filed by the claimant in L.A.R.77/03 whose land in Pallippuram village of Cherthala thaluk was acquired at the instance of the second respondent, KSIDC for the purpose of establishment of an industrial growth centre. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property under acquisition in category 3 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.7,876/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, reliance was placed mostly on Ext.A3 judgment of the same court pertaining to another case involving properties in category 3. The Reference Court did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A3 on the reason that L. A. A. No.593 of 2008 -2- Ext.A3 was pending by way of Special Leave Petition No.14714/07 before the Supreme Court and hence, Ext.A3 has not become final. Thus, Ext.A3 was eschewed from consideration and the court below went on to consider the other evidence based on record by the claimant. The court below was not impressed by other items of evidence especially Ext.A2 Sale Deed and Ext.X1 Commission Report and hence, become inclined to award market value fixing the same based on Exts.A2 and X1. Ultimately, what the court below did was to award 25% enhancement by applying the rule of thumb. 2. We have heard Smt.Jeena Joseph, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.P.K.Babu, Senior Government Pleader and Sri.V.Jayapradeep, Standing L. A. A. No.593 of 2008 -3- Counsel for the KSIDC, requisitioning authority. 3. Sri.V.Jayapradeep, SC, KSIDC at the outset itself sought for time. We are not inclined to grant adjournment since we notice that the issue involved has been decided by us and even by the Supreme Court in a large number of other cases. It is not disputed that the appellant's property was included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category 3. Second respondent who is only the contesting respondent cannot have a contention legitimately that the appellant's property is not entitled to be included in category 3. For all properties in category 3 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.7876/-. The only reason on which Ext.A3 was rejected by the learned Sub Judge is the pendency of L. A. A. No.593 of 2008 -4- SLP No.14714/07. We notice that the said SLP was dismissed and the Supreme Court has approved Ext.A3. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP.14714/07, this Court has decided a large number of cases pertaining to acquisition of properties in category 3 approving re-fixation at the rate of Rs.7,876/- per Are. 4. In the above circumstances, allowing this appeal, we re-fix the value of properties belong to the appellants at Rs.7,876/- per Are. The appellant will be entitled for enhancement of compensation on the above basis. It is needless to say that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 21(a), 22 and 28. L. A. A. No.593 of 2008 -5- 5. This appeal is thus, allowed without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/- Figure and words “Rs.7876/- per Are” occurring in the last sentence of paragraph 3 and in the first sentence of paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 11/06/2009 in L.A.A. No.593/2008 are corrected as “Rs.17297/- per Are” vide order dated 03/07/2009 in I.A. No.2018/2009.