IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 955 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.164/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- 1. V.APPUKUTTAN,PRASANNA VILASOM (DIED), THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KAZHAKKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.PRASAD,S/O.MADHAVAN, PRASANNA VILASOM, AMBALATHINKARA, KAZHAKKUTTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M.PRAKASH, S.O.MADHAVAN, PRASANNA VILASOM, AMBALATHINKARA, KAZHAKKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009, ALONG WITH L.A.A.NO.18/2008 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos.18,93,94,955/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader takes notice for the State. Sri.P.Ahammed, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the requisitioning authority. 2. These are all the appeals preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by the redetermination of the market value by the reference court on references under Section 18 initiated by them. The acquisition was for the purpose of electronics Techno Park, at Thiruvananthapauram. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 5/4/1994. The land acquisition officer had categorized the lands under acquisition into 15 categories and the properties involved in these appeals were included in category 9 viz. the properties lying adjacent to the properties in category 8 (which were having frontage of N.H.), but having facility of only footpath. The properties in these cases were not originally dry lands. The properties were only wet lands, which had been reclaimed as dry lands. For these L.A.A.Nos.18/08 & others 2 properties the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12644/- per Are corresponding to Rs.5119/- per cent. We had occasion to decide L.A.A.No.491/2007, which was a case pertaining to acquisition of the properties included in category 8 by the land acquisition officer pursuant to the very same notification and for the same purpose. Under the judgment of the reference court in L.A.A. No.491/2007, the land value at the rate of Rs.14874/- which was awarded by the land acquisition officer for the properties in category No.8 was enhanced by the reference court to Rs.24710/-. Giving reasons, we approved such enhancement granted by the reference court and dismissed the Government's appeal L.A.a.491/2007. 3. On hearing the submissions of Smt.M.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and those of Sri.P.Ahammed learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority and the senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji, we are of the view that a proportionate increase based on the value of 24710/- is approved by this court for the properties in category No.8 is necessary in the ends of justice. Under the impugned judgment , the reference court has refixed the land value at Rs.16437/- only. L.A.A.Nos.18/08 & others 3 Even according to the awarding officer in his award, these properties are situated very near by and the ratio between the values of these properties and the properties in category No.8 and category 9 is 85 : 100. But, we find some merit in the submission of the learned Government and the standing counsel that the correct ratio to be fixed should be different since the property in category 9 is much inferior to the property in category 8. 4. Considering the above submissions, we feel that the correct ratio to be fixed between the values of the properties in category 8 and 9 is 100 : 80. It should be noticed that neither the Government nor the requisitioning authority are entitled to challenge the rationale of the ratio fixed by the land acquisition officer. But the reference court under Section 18 and this court being the court of appeal has power to vary the ratio so fixed by the land acquisition officer. Since we have found that the correct ratio to be fixed between the values of the properties in category 8 and 9 is 100 : 80, the correct market value to be granted for the properties, which are included in category 9 on the basis of the approval given to the market value of L.A.A.Nos.18/08 & others 4 Rs.24,710/- to the properties in category 8 will 19,768/- per Are. 5. Result of the above discussion is that all these appeals will stand allowed refixing the market value of the acquired properties at Rs.19768/- per are. It is needless to mention that the respondents/claimants will be entitled for all the statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the land acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation to which the respondents claimants become eligible on account of refixation of the market value. It is ordered that in the circumstances of these cases, the parties are directed to suffer their costs throughout. Decree copies need be issued only on remittance of full court fee by the appellants. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk