IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 1240 of 2009(D) -------------------------------- LAR.46/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX,PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI-682018,REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, (NOW OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.1/631/A,KANADIKADU AREA,MARADU P.O., KOCHI-682 304). BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND FIRST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STELLA MACHAEL, MANAYIL VEEDU, KARUTHURA, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1240 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The Inland Waterways Authority of India/the Requisitioning Authority is in appeal. Under challenge is the judgment of the Reference Court by which the Reference Court granted 60% enhancement over the rate which was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The property was in Chavara village of Kollam district. We had occasion to dismiss L.A.A.1242/09 filed by the appellant in respect of acquisition of land in Alappat village in the same district. In that case also enhancement granted by the Reference Court was 60%. We took the view that enhancement at that rate L. A. A. No.1240 of 2009 -2- is not excessive. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that the enhancement at the same rate given under the impugned judgment is not excessive. 2. Sri.V.Santharam, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that dismissing the appeal filed by the Requisitioning Authority at the threshold may cause prejudice to that authority since claimants are filing large number of appeals. According to us, our dismissing the appeal filed by the Requisitioning Authority will not stand in the way of that authority raising contentions on all legal grounds against the appeals filed by the claimants. This judgment will not cause any prejudice at all to the appellant. 3. With the above observations, this appeal is L. A. A. No.1240 of 2009 -3- dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-