IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 806 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.149/1999 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. CHATHANCHIRA MOHAMMED, S/O MARAKAR, HAJIYARPALLY P.O., KOLMANNA, MALAPPURAM. 2. KADERI KHADEEJA, W/O CHATHANCHIRA MOHAMMED, HAJIYARPALLY P.O., KOLMANNA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC FOR R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.806 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are the appellants and they impugn the adequacy of the enhancement granted by the reference court for their properties, which were acquired for the purpose of establishment of the Industrial Growth Centre at Malappuram, belonging to the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2940/- per cent. Under the impugned judgment, the same was enhanced to Rs.3280/- per cent. In this appeal, the appellants claim land value at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. A.A.Mohammed Nazir, learned counsel for the appellants and those of Sri.Joby Cyriac, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority. We have heard Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader for the State also. 3. Even though Sri.Mohammed Nazir, addressed us on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, he would L.A.A..No.806/2007 2 ultimately confine his submissions to the enhancement granted under Annexures A1 and A2 judgments of this court in two cases pertaining to the acquisition for the very same purpose and pursuant to the very same notification. Annexure A1 is a copy of the judgment in L.A.A. Nos.768/2005 series. Under Annexure- A1, this court has refixed the value of land in category D (the same category as the value of properties involved in this appeal) at Rs.4,000/- per cent. Under Annexure A2, which was another appeal pertaining to property included by the Land Acquisition Officer in the same category D, this court has refixed the land value at Rs.4,500/- per cent. The learned counsel for the appellants requested that Ext.A2 be followed and the value of the property in this case be refixed at Rs.4,500/- per cent. 4. Sri.Joby Cyriac submitted that in Annexure-2 there was a serious dispute between the parties as to the correct category in which the properties should be included. This court in that case has observed that properties in Annexure A2 was eligible to be included in a superior category. Therefore, in this case we may not follow Annexure A2. Sri.Mohammed Nazir submitted that it is true that there is such observation in Annexure A2, but this L.A.A..No.806/2007 3 court has not taken any final decision on the correct category in which Annexure A2 property be included. According to the learned counsel, Annexure A2 property and the properties in this case all were included in category D by the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We feel that the decision of this court to grant higher value, than Rs.4,000/- granted to the properties covered by Annexure A1, was to a certain extent due to the reason that this court was of the opinion that Annexure A2 property was eligible to be included in a higher category. We, therefore, are not inclined to grant the same value as awarded to Annexure A2 property. We do not find any serious opposition for the value awarded to Annexure 1 Property. Accordingly, following Annexure A1, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and revision. The value of the properties under acquisition be fixed at Rs.4,000/- per cent. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent, however, without any order as to costs. It is made clear that appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under law on L.A.A..No.806/2007 4 the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of our refixation done under this judgment. While drafting the decree, regard should be had to the directions contained in the order of this court in CMP No.956/2007. During the period condoned by that order, the appellants/claimants will not be entitled for interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act. The Registry will issue certified copy of the decree to the appellants only after the appellants have paid the entire court fee. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk