IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1001 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.207/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT: -------------- N.T.P.C. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (HR), KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. SRIL SAIDU MUHAMMED KUJU, KADAMBASSERIL, NANGIARKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A. NO.111, S.T.P.S HARIPAD, IST RESPONDENT IN THE L.A.R.) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN FOR R2 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) FOR R1 SRI.A.R.DILEEP FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1001 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The requisitioning authority is in appeal. The lands treated as wet lands by the requisitioning authorities situated in Chingoli village were acquired for the purpose of the appellant authority pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification published on 2/2/1990. The LAO would award land value at the rate of Rs.2400/- per Are. The Reference Court, on appreciating the evidence, would refix the land value at Rs.15,000/- per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing the decision of the Reference Court and Sri. Shafik M.Abdulkhadir, learned counsel for the appellant, addressed arguments on the basis of those grounds. The learned counsel submitted that the requisitioning authority was agreeable only for award of enhancement up to 150% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. He submitted that on that basis the requisitioning authority withdrew from large number of appeals preferred. He requested that enhancement be limited to so L.A.A..No. 1001/2008. 2 much percentage. 3. Sri.George Varghese, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submitted that classification of lands as wet land was improper and substantial portion of the land acquired was reclaimed land. For reclaimed land, this Court has approved enhancement up to Rs. 12,000/- per Are or even more. The learned counsel submitted that, in the instant case even if this Court is interfering, the reduction may not be beyond the level of Rs. 12,000/- . 4. Having anxiously considered the submissions and having gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that there is every justification for refixing the value of land under acquisition at least at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per Are. This view, we are taking since we find that even the learned Subordinate Judge has found that at least a small portion of the land was reclaimed land. Hence, in modification of the impugned judgment, we refix the market value of the land at Rs.9,000/- per Are. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The respondent/claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act L.A.A..No. 1001/2008. 3 on the amounts as refixed by this judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk