IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 1559 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.282/2004 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- S.K. RAJELAKSHMI, MADATHUVILAKAM, NEAR K.S.E.B CHACKAI, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.76, T.C 2/2752, VRINDAVAN GARDEN, PATTOM, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ( deleted) THE 2ND RSPONDENT IS SUO MOTU DELETED AND SUBSTITUTED BY THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATINAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (VIDE ORDER DATED 13/8/2009) ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN, SC, TVM AIRPORT ATY FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1559 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. She raises two grounds. The first ground is that the Reference Court went wrong in disallowing interest during the period from 4/2/1999 till 21/6/2002. The second ground is that the market value refixed by the Reference Court is inadequate. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Arun B.Varghese, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and those of Sri.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader. 3. The Government Pleader at the very outset would very fairly concede that as for as the first ground is concerned, the land acquisition proceedings were under stay during the relevant period and hence the Reference Court was justified in disallowing the interest during that period. As regards the second ground, the learned counsel drew our attention to the judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.727/2008 by which this court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Government against Ext.A1. The learned L.A.A. No.1559/2008 2 Counsel drew our attention also to the judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.1081/2008 relying on which only L.A.A. No.727/2008 was filed. He submitted that it is clear from the judgment in L.A.A No.1081/2008 that the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.62/2006 had refixed the land value of the properties in category 1 (same category property under acquisition in this case) at Rs.1,00,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs.2,47,000/- per Are. The learned counsel requested that in view of the judgment in L.A.R. No.62/2006, this appeal be allowed at least to the extent of refixing the land value at Rs.2,47,000/- per Are. The above submissions were resisted by the learned senior Government Pleader. 2. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that since Ext.A1 was the only tangible item of evidence in support of the appellant's claim for enhancing the land value, the appellant cannot have any legitimate grievance about the impugned judgment. She has been awarded the market value, which could have been awarded on the basis of Ext.A1. As for the finality apparently attained by the judgment in L.A.R. No. 62/2006, we make it clear that the observations in the L.A.A. No.1559/2008 3 judgment in L.A.A. No.1081/2008 will not stand in the way of the Government preferring appeal against Judgment in L.A.R. No. 62/2006. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk