IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 1436 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.81/2004 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ------------------- NARAYANI PADMAVATHI, KOOPPUZHACHIRAYIL, PALLIPURAM, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI R2 BY ADV.MR.JOBY CYRIAC, S.C. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1436 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 13th August, 2008 JUDGMENT When this appeal came up for admission on 11.8.2008, I directed the counsel for the appellant to serve copy of the appeal memorandum to the learned Government Pleader and also Adv.Mr.Joby Cyriac, Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority. Accordingly, the Government Pleader took notice for the 1st respondent and the Standing Counsel took notice for the 2nd respondent. I have heard the submissions of Mr.N.Nagaresh, counsel for the appellant, Mr.Joby Cyriac, Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the Government Pleader for the State. 2. Mr.Nagaresh, counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below was not at all justified in not relying on Ext.A1. Ext.A1 has attained finality. Ext.A1 related to another case where also the land acquisition officer had granted the same land value as he had granted to the appellant as value of the land. Mr.Joby Cyriac would concede that Ext.A1 has attained finality in the sense that this court and the Supreme Court virtually confirmed Ext.A1. As per Ext.A1, the land value of the properties involved in that case has been refixed from Rs.7876/- per are to Rs.17,297/-. On going through the LAA No.1436/08 - 2 - judgment of the reference court, it is seen that the learned Subordinate Judge on appreciating the oral evidence which was tendered before that court by the appellant (A.W.1) and the principal witness of the respondents (R.W.1) found that the property covered by Ext.A1 document was having direct road frontage of Cherthala- Arookutty road while the acquired property did not have frontage of that road. In fact the appellant himself, it appears, conceded before the court below that the acquired property did not enjoy all the advantages which the properties covered by Ext.A1 enjoyed. That was the justification of the learned Subordinate Judge in not following Ext.A1. But obviously, the learned Subordinate Judge has not taken note of a very crucial point. Ext.A1 property and the acquired property were treated by the Land Acquisition Officer to be of the same value for the purpose of determining the original compensation. Imbibing the principles underlying provisions such as Section 28A, it is necessary that a parity must be maintained in the matter of land value payable for the properties which had been granted equal land value by the land acquisition officer for the purpose of award. Having regard to the finality attained by Ext.A1, it is necessary that the appellant should also be paid the land value which is to be paid to the LAA No.1436/08 - 3 - party in Ext.A1. 3. The result is that the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree under appeal, I refix the value of the acquired properties of the appellant at Rs.17,297/- per Are. Decree will be drawn up accordingly. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be eligible for all statutory benefits including solatium, amount due under Section 23(1A) and interest due under Section 28 on the enhanced compensation. In the circumstances, the parties will suffer their costs through out. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE