IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 376 of 2009(D) -------------------------- LAR.309/2004 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ S.LEELA, AMBILI BHAVAN, AZHAKKULAM, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.J.MARY HELP JOHN DAVID FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` L.A.A. No. 376 of 2009 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Government is in appeal being aggrieved by what is described as the excessive compensation awarded to the claimant/ respondent. The property under acquisition was in Venganoor village and the purpose of acquisition was widening of road from Kovalam to Mukkola reach I. Relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 25-03-2002. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.40,625/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned judgment relied on Ext.A1 judgment of the same court in another case and re-fixed the land value at Rs.1,50,000/- per Are. In this appeal, it is urged that the enhancement granted is excessive and Ext.A1 was not a similar case. 2. We have heard the submissions of Smt.P.N.Sumangala, learned Government Pleader, and those of Sri.J.Mary Help John David, counsel for the respondent. LAA.376/09 : 2 : Smt.P.N.sumangala would assail the judgment of the reference court on various grounds raised. The learned counsel for the respondent would support the same. It was submitted by Smt.P.N.Sumangala that, by judgment in LAA No.1358/2008, this Court has re-fixed the value of land for which the same value as in Ext.A1 judgment was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at 139 % over that rate. She also submitted that, in almost all other cases pertains to acquisition for the same purpose, this court has granted only cent percentage over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer or even less. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, would submit that there was every justification for granting the enhancement presently granted. 3. We notice the judgment of this court in LAA No.1358/08. Under that judgment, this court has re-fixed the value of land at Rs.97,000/- per cent. In view of the judgment in LAA No.1358/08, it is not possible to sustain enhancement at the rate granted under Ext.A1 judgment. It necessarily has to be interfered with. Noticing judgment in Ext.A1 and the judgment in LAA No.1358/08, we re-fix the land value at Rs.98,000/- per cent. LAA.376/09 : 3 : The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation to which the claimant becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. The execution court is directed to release all the amounts which are due to the claimant on the basis of our present judgment immediately. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks The words and figures `97,000/- per cent and “`98,000/-” per cent occurring in the 3rd and 7th lines respectively in paragraph 3 of the judgment dated 18/12/2009 in L.A.A.376/2009 are corrected and substituted as “`97,000/-” per Are and `98,000/- per Are” respectively, vide order dated 12/03/2013 in I.A.189/2013 in L.A.A.376/2009. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)