IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 384 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.129/2003 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, REP. BY ASST.GENERAL MANAGER, KSIDC, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND R1: ------------------------------- 1. SRI.MALAYIL SREEDHARAN, KINALUR, KOYILANDY. 2. SASI, KINALUR, KOYILANDY. 3. SATHEESH, -DO-. 4. RAJEEVAN, KINALUR, KOYILANDY. (AUTHORISED AGENT MALAYIL SREEDHARAN). 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 384 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the KSIDC the requisitioning authority in acquisition pursuant to notification under Section 4 (1) published on 12/4/1999 for the purpose of widening of Vatoli Bazar Kinalur road. The land acquisition officer granted land value at the rate of Rs. 3032/- per cent. The reference court relying on the evidence which consisted of Exts.A1, AW1, Exts.R1 to R5 and RW1 and Ext.X1 – commission report, refixed the land value at Rs.8,000/-. 2. Sri.Joby Cyriac, learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed me strenuously on all the grounds raised. On behalf of Sri.Sunny Mathew, learned counsel for the party respondents, the submissions of Sri.Joby Cyriac were sought to be resisted. I will notice immediately that some of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant assailing the reliance placed by the reference court on Ext.A1 were really attractive. But, it is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant himself that in L.A.A..No.384/2006 2 L.A.A. No.659/2005 and Cross Objection No.131/2005, I had through my judgment dated 2/9/2008 refixed the value of land which had been valued by the awarding officer at Rs.3034/- per cent in the very same acquisition at Rs.7,500/- per cent. I feel that the principles underlying under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act demand that parity is maintained by the court in the matter of land value of properties treated by the land acquisition officer in the very same acquisition to be of the same value. Therefore, I feel it necessary to refix the land value in this case at Rs.7,500/- per cent following my judgment in L.A.A. No.659/2005 and Cross Objection No.131/2005. 3. Result is that the appeal will stand allowed. The judgment and decree under appeal is set aside and the land value of the acquired properties in this case is refixed at Rs.7,500/- per cent. It is needless to mention that for the enhanced land value calculated on the basis of the value refixed under this judgment the respondent will be entitled for all statutory benefits which were admissible to them under the award of the land acquisition officer. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. But, in L.A.A..No.384/2006 3 the circumstances, the parties will suffer their cost in this appeal. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk