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 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 88 of 2008() ------------------------ LAR.269/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- N.T.P.C. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (HR),KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS/1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- 1. SMT. SUKUMARI, D/O. A.V.KRISHNAN NAMPOOTHIRI,ALAPPURATHU MADATHIL KIZHAKKUM MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DIST. (EXPIRED). 2. A.K. MURALEEDHARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ALAPPURATHU ILLATHU, KIZHAKKUM MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. A.K. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ALAPPURATHU ILLATHU, KIZHAKKUM MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. A.K. KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ALAPPURATHU ILLATHU, KIZHAKKUM MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. A.K. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ALAPPURATHU ILLATHU, KIZHAKKUM MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. A.K. SANTHAKUMARI, ALAPPURATHU ILLATHU, KIZHAKKUM MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A) NO.III, S.T.P.S. HARIPPAD, (1ST RESPONDENT IN THE LAR). GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI GEORGE VARGHESE MANAKKACHERIL(NO MEMO) THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.88 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 19 th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. It is declared that respondents 3 to 6 have been duly served. The notice, which was sent to the first respondent as early as on 3/2/2008, is yet to be returned. We are of the view that there is justification for invoking Rule 51 (2). We declare that the first respondent has been duly served. We also notice that those respondents, who have been served, are close relatives of the first respondent and the claimants were pursuing the same contention before the court below engaging the same advocate. Thus the interest of the first respondent in the subject matter of the appeal is adequately represented by the other respondents who have been served. 2. This appeal by the Requisitioning Authority pertains to acquisition of land in Cheppad village for their project at Kayamkulam. The lands were wet lands and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.2142/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment, refixed the land value at Rs.12,000/- per Are. LAA.No.88/2008 2 3. Having regard to the view uniformly taken by this court in various other cases pertaining to the acquisition of land in the same village for the same purpose, we are of the view that enhancement granted by the Reference Court is excessive. Taking into account the decision taken by this court in other connected matters, we refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.7500/- per Are. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. But we make it clear that on the enhanced compensation to which the claimants/respondents become eligible by virtue of this refixation done by us, the respondents will be entitled for all statutory benefits. The appeal is allowed as above, but without any order as to costs. This judgment will become operative only if the appellant pays the costs ordered in C.M.Appln. No.77/2008 on time and produces receipt before the Execution Court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk