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 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1594 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.394/1997 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ 1. KUMBALAPRAVAN KUMARAN. 2. A.P. KALIANI. (BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SREENIKETHAN, CHERUVANCHERRY P.O., CHITTARIPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK). 3. KUNIYIL SAJEESH, S/O.K.KUMARAN MASTER, PATUR AMSOM, CHENDAYAD DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. 4. KUNJIYIL MANOJ, S/O. K.KUMARAN MASTER, SREENIKETHAN, CHERUVANCHERRY AMSOM, DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. 5. KUNJIYIL SANTHOSH, S/O.K.KUMARAN MASTER, -DO- -DO-. 6. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A., THALASSERY. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN FOR R6 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 1594 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The requisitioning authority is in appeal and they are aggrieved by the redetermination of the market value of the land at Rs.1000/- per cent. The acquisition was for establishment of the Industrial Growth Centre at Thalassery by the KSIDC. It is brought to our notice that this Court by judgment in LAA. No. 265 of 2005 has approved redetermination of the land value at Rs.1000/- per cent in identical cases. The challenge against the redetermination of market value of the land necessarily has to be repelled. But it is submitted by Mr.Joby Cyriac that what the learned Subordinate Judge did under the impugned judgment was to substitute the method of capitalization of income by the method of awarding market value of the lands under acquisition. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it LAA. N0. 1594 of 2007 -2- was necessary that whatever amount awarded by the L.A. Officer towards capitalization of income had to be deducted. We notice some merit in the submission. Even as we confirm the redetermination of the market value of the land done under the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the question whether the value of improvements is to be deducted can be relegated to the decision of the reference court itself on an application to be filed in that regard by the appellant. We are unable to decide finally since we notice that the respondent is yet to be served with notice. Accordingly, even as we confirm the market value fixed by the court below, we permit the appellant to file necessary application before the reference court for a direction that whatever amount paid by the L.A. Officer towards value of improvements should be deducted from the total compensation resulting from the re-fixation of market value. If such a petition is filed by the appellant, the reference LAA. N0. 1594 of 2007 -3- court will issue notice to the claimant and then only takes a decision on the petition. Appeal is dismissed with the above direction. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-