IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 696 of 2005() ------------------------------------- LAR.84/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (HR) KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. MR.SHAFIK M.ABDULKHADIR RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- 1. SMT. MOLY MATHEW, SUNIL BHAVANAM,CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA (SPECIAL TAHSILDR L.A.) NO.III, S.T.P.S. HARIPAD, (1ST RESPONDENT IN THE LAR). R1 BY ADVS.MR.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH, MR.A.R.DILEEP. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= L.A.A. No. 696 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. We have heard Sri.Shafik M.Abdulkhadir, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.George Varghese, the learned counsel for the claimant. We have heard Smt.P.N.Sumangala, the learned Government Pleader also. 2. This is an appeal filed by the requisitioning authority. The acquisition was for the purpose of Township for N.T.P.C., Kayamkulam. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,142/- per Are. Before the reference court, the 1st respondent/claimant contended that the properties have road access. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on Advocate Commissioner's report and accepted the above contention. It is seen that for wet land with road frontage, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.2,400/-. Thus at the hands of Land Acquisition Officer himself the claimant was entitled to land value at Rs.2,400/- per Are. 3. We have made re-appreciation of evidence. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We are of the view that the determination L.A.A.No 696/05 2 of market value at Rs.8,000/- per Are by the Subordinate Judge is excessive. We therefore re-fix the land value at Rs.7,200/- per Are. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent without any order as to costs. We make it cellar that the total enhanced compensation to which she becomes eligible on account of our re-fixation. The claimant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under sections 23(2, 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mn.