IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 LA.App.No. 41 of 2002(A) & CROSS OBJECTION No. 45 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- LAR.51/1996 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR. RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------ AYAMPARAMBATH AYSHA, W/O. MAMMASEN, AYAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, KOTTULY P.O.,MALAPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI. G.G. MANOJ THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.41 of 2002 & Cross Objection 45/2005 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. This is an appeal filed by the State aggrieved by the fixation of land value by the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery. The acquisition is for the purpose of Kuttiyadi Augmentation Scheme. Section 4(1) notification is dated 23-10-1983. Though the learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the rate of fixation by the reference court does not reflect the actual land value, we find that the contentions cannot be appreciated. The reference court has made fixation on the basis of the evidence available on record. A proper comparison has been made with Ext.A1 property which is a coffee plantation and Rs.100/- per cent has been reduced taking note of the disadvantages to the acquired property. The learned Government Pleader submits that the reference court erred in granting the Section 23 (1A) benefit since the acquisition is prior to the amendment to the Land Acquisition Act introduced in the year 1984. But it is seen that L.A.A.No.41 of 2002 -:2:- the acquisition in the present case is after 30-4-1982 and therefore in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, 1994 (2) KLT 763 the claimants are entitled to the benefits. 2. As far as the cross objection is concerned we find that the grievance is limited to interest on solatium. It is now settled law as held by this court in Sankaranezhuthassan v.State of Kerala, 2007(4) KLT 492 that the cross objector will be entitled to interest on solatium with effect from 19-9-2001 onwards. The claimant hence shall be entitled for interest on solatium with effect from 19-9-2001 onwards. The judgment and decree will stand modified to the above extent. The appeal is dismissed. The cross objection is allowed as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- L.A.A.No.41 of 2002 & Cross Objection 45/2005 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 26th March, 2008