IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 132 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.149/2005 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.2 ----------------------------- GENERAL MANAGER, KSIDC, REP. BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, KSIDC, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND R1 ------------------------------ 1. SRI. AAYIRATHI MAROLI RAGHAVAN, S/O. CHATHU, ADIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NARAVOOR .P.O, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN FOR R1 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.132 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal is preferred by the Requisitioning Authority and the case pertains to acquisition of land in Kuthuparamba village for the purpose of construction of the road which leads to the Industrial Growth Centre at Valiavelicham. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per cent which was re-fixed by the Reference Court to Rs.20,000/- per cent. For reasons stated by judgment of this Court in K.S.I.D.C v. Vayalambron Krishnan (2008(4) KLT 726) the impugned judgment necessarily has to be set aside and the matter sent L. A. A. No.132 of 2009 -2- back to the Reference Court. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand LAR.149/05 to the Sub Court, Thalassery. The Sub Court is directed to permit both sides to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. That court is directed to pass the revised judgment on the basis of the entire evidence which comes on record. We make it clear that this Court did not mean by its judgment in K.S.I.D.C v. Vayalambron Krishnan (2008(4) KLT 726) which is authored by one among us [PCK(J)] that Rs.9,000/- per cent shall be the maximum value. Value can vary on the basis of the evidence available on record. Locational advantages of a given plot also can be taken note of by the Reference Court for granting compensation more than what is granted to another plot. L. A. A. No.132 of 2009 -3- The appeal is thus, allowed by way of remand. Refund full court fee remitted on the appeal memo to the appellant. Sri.Joby Cyriac submits that 50% of the amount due under the impugned judgment and decree is under deposit. The Reference Court will release that 50% to the claimant. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-