IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 LA.App..No. 1194 of 2010() and Cross Objection No.65 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAR.65/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT IN LAR ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT IN LAR ------------------------------ SMT.EDIN BERG, W/O.KUNJAPPAN, VATTAPARAMBIL, VALLUVALLY, KOONAMMAVU KARA - 683 518. BY ADV.SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2011, ALONG WITH CO NO. 65 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- L.A.A.No.1194 of 2010 and Cross Objection No.65 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. This appeal is filed by the Government, challenging judgment of the Reference Court in L.A.R.No.65 of 2008. The land in question was acquired for construction of NH-17 from Varapuzha-Cheriyappilly. Section 4(1) notification was published on 23.8.2004. The LAO fixed land value at the rate of Rs.38,979/- per Are, treating the land in question under Category No.'8'. Reference Court enhanced the land value to Rs.1,78,304/-, holding that the land in question will fall within Category No. '2'. The appeal is filed assailing the findings of the Reference Court with respect to change of Category, as well as challenging the quantum of compensation award. 2. Cross Objection No.65 of 2011 is filed by the respondent/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation already awarded by the Reference court. 3. The court below found that 2.33 Ares of land acquired in this case is part of 10 cents of land assigned to the claimant by 2 L.A.A.No.1194 of 2010 and Cross Objection No.65 of 2011 her husband, who is the claimant in L.A.R.No.169 of 2007. It is found that the acquired property formed part of the common properties. Appreciating the evidence on record, court below found that both the properties Are common holdings and the properties originally belonged to the husband of the claimant and it was derived from a common ancestor. It is only by virtue of an assignment made by the husband that the acquired property devolved upon the claimant. It is also found that the properties Are lying as a single unit without being separated by any boundaries. Yet another finding is to the effect that there exist a residential building in the Area owned by a claimant and her husband. We do not find any merit to deviate from the findings arrived by the court below regarding the nature of the property and its categorisation. There is no peace of evidence produced from the side of the appellant herein to show that the property owned by the respondent herein is lying separated from the property which is owned by her husband. 4. With respect to the cross objection filed seeking enhancement, we notice a common judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.474 of 2009 and connected cases. For properties 3 L.A.A.No.1194 of 2010 and Cross Objection No.65 of 2011 acquired for the very same purpose through the very same notification, this Court had enhanced the land value of properties covered under Category No.'2' and refixed the same at Rs.1,86,000/- per Are. Therefore we allow the cross objection by refixing the land value of the acquired property at Rs.1,86,000/- per Are. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and cross Objection No.65 of 2011 is allowed in part, to the extent of enhancing and refixing the land value at the rate of Rs.1,86,000/- per Are. The respondent/Cross Objector will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, on the total refixed compensation. The parties Are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/