IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No.358 of 2004 (D) -------------------------------- LAR.136/1994 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------------- VILASINI KUNJAMMA, AYODHYA, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, STPS, HARIPPAD). 2. N.T.P.C. LTD., REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KAYAMKULAM PROJECT, KAYAMKULAM, NANGIARKULANGARA. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BASANT BALAJI SRI.V.J.JOSEPH FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.358 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This is an appeal preferred by the claimant. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Chingoli village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 17/04/90 for the purposes of National Thermal Power Corporation. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in the category of wetlands with PWD road frontage and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,600/- per Are. One of the claims seriously raised by the appellant/claimant before the Reference Court was that his property was dry land and hence, should be awarded the value which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for dry lands i.e. Rs.9,000/- per Are L. A. A. No.358 of 2004 -2- re-fixed at Rs.18,000/- per Are. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.V.J.Joseph, counsel for the requisitioning authority and also Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Senior Government Pleader. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to the Mahazar. On going through the Mahazar, we are convinced that the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified in treating the property under acquisition as pure wetland. The property was certainly reclaimed land at the time of acquisition and it had a large number of yielding coconut trees apart from other trees. The property is described as “Nikath Purayidam” (reclaimed land). We, therefore, are of the view that both the awarding officer as well as the Reference Court were in error in L. A. A. No.358 of 2004 -3- treating the property as wetland only. 3. Having regard to the facts emerging from the Mahazar which is binding on both sides, we hold that the property under acquisition was qualitatively superior to pure wetland, however, inferior to pucca dry land. 4. It is fairly conceded before us by the learned counsel for the claimant that for original dry lands the Reference Court has re-fixed the land value at Rs.18,000/- per Are. We feel that there is justification for re-fixing the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.10,000/- per Are and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. 5. It is needless the mention that the appellant/claimant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and L. A. A. No.358 of 2004 -4- under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation which will become admissible also by virtue of our re-fixation under this judgment. The amount already paid i.e. Rs.60,640/- under the award of the Land Acquisition Officer to the appellant towards reclamation charges will be deducted from the total re-fixed compensation. 6. This appeal is allowed, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-