IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 LA.App..No. 622 of 2002(D) -------------------------- LAR.424/1993 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- CHITHRA DEVI,SANKARAMANGALAM (TADEEYATHU) NANGIARKULANGARA,CHINGOLI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,KAYAMKULAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI SRI.K.ANAND, SC, NTPC SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 622 of 2002 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimant and the case pertains to acquisition of land in Chingoli Village for the purpose of the National Thermal Power Corporation for their project at Kayamkulam. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2200/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned judgment enhanced the same to Rs.4,400/- per Are. Our attention is drawn by Mr.Sasikumar, learned counsel for the appellant to a judgment of this court in LAA. No. 936 of 2002, where interfering with the award of the reference court this court re-fixed value of lands, for which the LA Officer had awarded Rs.2100/- per Are and the Subordinate Judge had re-fixed at Rs.4,800/-, at Rs.5500/- per Are. According to Sasikumar, the properties are identical and were situated LAA. 622/02 - 2 - adjacently and therefore the same rate should be awarded for the property under acquisition in this appeal. Smt. Latha Anand, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority would draw our attention to the judgment of this court in LAA. No. 1110 of 2002. According to her, the above LAA was filed by the requisitioning authority against the impugned judgment itself. She would blame the appellant for not having brought to the notice of this court at the time when LAA. 1110 of 2002 was decided, the pendency of the present appeal. She also submitted that in all probability the execution court has recorded full satisfaction of the decree on the basis of the deposit made by the requisitioning authority pursuant to the judgment in LAA. 1110 of 2002. Interfering with the impugned judgment at this juncture will result in serious prejudice to the requisitioning authority. In reply Mr.Sasikumar submitted that the requisitioning authority is also responsible for not LAA. 622/02 - 3 - bringing to the notice of this court the pendency of the present appeal when LAA. 1110 of 2002 was dismissed. He submitted that in connected matters which were covered by the impugned common judgment this court has re-fixed the value at Rs.5,500/- as granted in LAA. 936 of 2002. 2. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar we are of the view that the market value of the land under acquisition in this appeal is liable to be re-fixed at Rs.5,100/- giving proportionate increase based on the judgment in LAA. No. 936 of 2002. Accordingly, we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.5,100/-. At the same time, we feel that the appellant is not justified in not facilitating the disposal of the present appeal along with LAA. No. 1110 of 2002. Therefore we are of the view that the appellant should pay a penalty. It is directed that during the period from 29-3- 2004 till 28-2-2010 the total enhanced compensation to LAA. 622/02 - 4 - which the appellant becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Appeal is allowed subject to the above direction, however, without any order as to cost. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/- LAA. 622/02 - 5 - PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. LAA. No. 622 of 2002 J U D G M E N T 23rd March, 2010