IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 126 of 2011() ------------------------- (LAR N.144/2007 OF THE SUB COURT, PALA) APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- TRUSTEE, ST.MARY'S FORINE CHURCH, BHARANANGANAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 126 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. As directed by us Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned senior Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of the Government and we have heard the submissions of Sri.T.I.Abdul Salam, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned Government Pleader. 2. Our attention is drawn by Mr.Abdul Salam to the common judgment of this court in L.A.A. Nos.1012/2009 series and to the judgment in L.A.A. No.751/2009. The learned counsel has placed before us copies of the above judgments. On going through the above judgments, we are convinced that those judgments pertain to acquisition of identical property for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. We find that under those judgments, the market value of identical lands has been refixed by this court at Rs.85,000/- per Are. In fact in L.A.A No.751/2009, the appellant was none other than the LAA.No.126/2011 2 appellant herein and the properties were also lying contiguously. Relying on the above judgment, we allow the appeal to the extent of refixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.85,000/- per Are. 3. Mr.Abdul Salam would draw our attention to Ext.C1 commission report and argue that a further amount of Rs..77616/- be awarded towards compensation for kaiyalas which existed on the property under acquisition. According to him, so much amount would be necessary for constructing new kaiyalas so as to prevent soil erosion in the reminder properties belonging to the appellant church. We were taken through the advocate commissioner's report by Mr.Abdul Salam. 4. Even though Mr.Salam was very appealing in his submissions, we are not inclined to accept the commissioner's report and award what is recommended by the commissioner to the appellant. According to us, there is no justification for awarding anything more than Rs.15,000/- to the appellant church towards kaiyalas in question. We award to the appellant Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the kaiyalas. 5. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits LAA.No.126/2011 3 admissible under Section 23 (2), 23 (1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. The Section, while drafting the decree, will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us by our order dated 27/1/2011 in C.M.Appln.196/2011. In other words, it should be clarified in the decree that during the period condoned by us, the compensation will not carry interest under Section 28. The appeal is allowed as above. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the entire court fee is paid and that the conditions imposed by us on the delay petition i.e. payment of cost is complied with. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk