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 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 314 of 2009() ---------------------------- LAR.135/2005 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM ........................................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. GEETHA ASOKAN, W/O.LATE M.V.ASOKAN, AKHIL SADANAM, AZHAKULAM, VIZHINJAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AKHIL KUMAR, S/O.LATE M.V.ASOKAN, R/AT. AKHIL SADANAM, AZHAKULAM, VIZHINJAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ARUN KUMAR, S/O.LATE V.M.ASOKAN, R/AT. AKHIL SADANAM, AZHAKULAM, VIZHINJAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. AMMUKUTTY AMMAL, D/O.KOCHUKRISHNAN ASARI RATNAKARA MANDIRAM, AZHAKULAM, VIZHINAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.J.MARY HELP JOHN DAVID FOR R1 TO 4 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------ L.A.A. No. 314 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 16th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The State is in appeal. The property was in Venganoor Village. The acquisition was for widening of road from Kovalam to Mukkola Reach I. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 25.3.2002. The property under acquisition was included in 'C' category and the L.A. Officer awarded a land value at the rate of Rs.40,623/- per Are. Our attention is drawn by Mr.Basant Balaji to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.1358/2008. That was a case pertaining to the same acquisition, but of property in a superior category, that is, 'B' category, for which the L.A.Officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs.52,237. Under that judgment, this Court re-fixed the value of the land at Rs.1,25,000/- per Are. Our attention is also drawn by Mr.Basant Balaji to the judgment in L.A.A.No.336/2009. That was a case, where the L.A.A.No.314/2009 - 2 - property was included in the same category, that is, 'C' category. Under that judgment, we have allowed the Government's appeal and re-fixed the land value at Rs. 98,000/- only. Mr.Basant Balaji requested that the judgment in L.A.A.No.336/2009 be followed and the appeal be allowed to the extent of re-fixing land value at Rs. 95,000/-. 2. All the submissions of Mr.Basant Balaji were stiffly resisted by Mr.John David, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr.John David submitted that the claimant in LA.A.No.376/2009 intends to seek a review of that judgment. He submitted that the property in that case was enjoying direct frontage of the road and hence there is every justification for allowing the prospective review petition in that case. 3. We are unable to accept the above submission in view of the finality attained by the judgment in L.A.ANo.1358/2008. The property in that case was in 'B' category, obviously, superior to the property in 'C' category. If it was case of the claimant that the property was eligible to L.A.A.No.314/2009 - 3 - be included in a superior category it was upto him to have taken out a Commission or adduced any other convincing evidence and proved before the reference court that there was eligibility for inclusion in a superior category. As far as we are concerned, the fact that the judgment in LA.A.No.1358/2008 has attained finality cannot be ignored. At the same time, we notice that the property in this particular case had certain advantages which the property in L.A.A.No.376/2009 did not enjoy. Taking into account those advantages, we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition in this case at Rs.1,00,000/- per Are. The appeal is allowed to that extent. Needless to mention that the respondent will be entitled for all statutory benefits otherwise admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) & 28 of the the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ps