IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 334 of 2010(C) ------------------------------- LAR.423/2003 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- J.PADMINI AMMA,CHAKKAVILAKAM, MUDUMBIL HOUSE,CHACKAI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA(THE SPECIAL TASHILDAR (L.A),INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,POST BOX NO.5424, VIKAS BHAVAN(P.O),MUSCOT SQUARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.334 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal by the claimant pertains to her claim for award of the benefit under Section 23 (1A) which was declined to her both by the Land Acquisition Officer and also by the Reference Court on the reason that during the period of 906 days the land acquisition proceedings were under stay by this Court. But it is brought to our notice that the appellant was not a party to any of the Writ Petitions in which this Court had ordered stay. The judgment of this Court in Balachandran v. State of Kerala (2010(2) KLT 269) squarely L. A. A. No.334 of 2010 -2- applies to this case and it has to be found that the appellant will be entitled for the additional amount under Section 23(1A) even for the period during which the benefit was denied to her by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court. Following the principles laid down in Balachandran's case (cited supra) we are inclined to allow this appeal almost fully. Thus, allowing this appeal we award to the appellant a further amount of Rs.74,080/- towards additional amount under Section 23(1A). The appellant will be entitled for the statutory interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the above amount. The appeal is allowed to the above extent, but in the circumstances without any order as to L. A. A. No.334 of 2010 -3- costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- L. A. A. No.334 of 2010 -4- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.584 of 2010 in L. A. A. No.334 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Heard both sides. This application will stand allowed subject to the following conditions:- 1) The appellant pays a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within ten days from today and produces receipt. 2) In the event of the appeal being allowed and the appellant becoming eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the L. A. A. No.334 of 2010 -5- period of 767 days condoned by this order. Annex a copy of this order to the judgment to be passed in this appeal. Once the Registry notices receipt against payment of cost, the appeal will be sent up for admission. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-