IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 293 of 2011 ---------------------------------- [LAR.NO.145/2003 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, HOSDRUG] .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- KINATHUKARA AMBADI, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, RESIDING AT KARIYANKODE, P.O.CHATHAMATH, PEROLE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SMT.CISSY MATHEWS. RESPONDENTS/REFERRING OFFICER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION), NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, KANNUR-670 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, KANNUR-670 001. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KASARGODE-671 121. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.293 of 2011-C -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this, the 6th day of July 2011 Judgment Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Perole village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 17.06.2000 for the purpose of construction of a railway over-bridge and an approach road to Pallikkara railway gate. Under the impugned judgment, the reference court has re-fixed the land value @ Rs.10,000/- per cent. In the present appeal, the claim is limited to Rs.25,000/- per cent, i.e, Rs.15,000/- more than what is awarded by the court. 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the reference court. We find that it was placing reliance on Exts.A3 and A4 decree and judgment respectively in L.A.R.No.189/03 that the learned Sub Judge has passed the impugned award. It has been found by the learned Sub Judge that the property covered by L.A.A.293/11 2 Exts.A3 and A4 and the properties under acquisition were adjacent properties acquired pursuant to separate notification issued on the same date. According to us, the reliance placed by the learned Sub Judge on Exts.A3 and A4 was quite justified. Mr. Jawahar Jose, learned counsel for the appellant placed before us the judgment of this court in L.A.A.No.258/11 delivered by one among us – PCK(J). The above judgment is the appellate judgment on Exts.A3 and A4. We find that under that judgment, the value of the properties covered by Exts.A3 and A4 has been re-fixed @ Rs.25,000/- per cent. We do not find any reason, why this appeal should not be allowed and the value of land under acquisition be re-fixed @ Rs.25,000/- per cent. Allowing this appeal, we re-fix the land value @ Rs.25,000/- per cent. This means that the appellant will get Rs.15,000/- more than what is awarded by the reference court. The appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits L.A.A.293/11 3 admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta L.A.A.293/11 4