IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 LA.App..No. 437 of 2006(D) -------------------------- LAR.141/2001 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- DR. SEETHA LAKSHMI @ DR.SWATHI K. VASU, W/O. DR. VASU, TALAP, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A. OFFICER, KANNUR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.T.K. MOHANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.437 of 2006 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. This appeal by the claimant pertains to acquisition of land in Elayavoor village for the purpose of Chovva Nadal Byepass pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 1.11.1997. Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs.5000/- per cent (roughly). The reference court refixed land value at Rs.7,500/- per cent. Even though Exts.A1 to A3 documents were produced and Advocate Commissioner in Ext.X1 report stated that properties covered by Exts.A1 to A3 are comparable with the property under acquisition, the court below did not place any reliance on Exts.A1 to A3. The court below noticed that in several other cases pertaining to the same acquisition, uniform rate of Rs.7,500/- per cent has been fixed and hence became inclined to refix the land value at Rs.7,500/- per cent only. 2. Various grounds have been raised in this appeal and Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal, learned counsel for the appellant L.A.A.437/06-D 2 addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. All those arguments were stiffly resisted by Smt. Latha T. Thankappan, Senior Government Pleader. Our attention is drawn by Mr.Kaimal to the judgment of this court in LAA.No.1225/2005. Records pertaining to that case were incorporated and it is seen that the above case was in respect of acquisition of identical land for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. It is seen that under that judgment this court did not interfere with the decision of the reference court to refix the land value at Rs.24,194/- per Are. We would have been inclined to allow the appeal by refixing land value at Rs.25,194/- per Are. But it is brought to our notice by the Government Pleader that the appellant's claim before the officer as well as the court was limited to Rs.9,850/- per cent. Accordingly, in modification of the impugned judgment we refix the land value of the property under acquisition at Rs.9,850/- per cent, corresponding to Rs.24,314/- per Are. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant/claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of L.A.A.437/06-D 3 the Land Acquisition Act. 3. However, while drafting the decree the Registry will have due regard to the direction of this court in the order condoning the delay. This means that during the period of delay condoned by this court the total enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs. The order in CMA.No.661/2006 stands modified to the above extent. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb