IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 664 of 2008(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMEN IN WPC.25272/2004 Dated 13/06/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------- 1. LAILA BEEVI, MULAKKALAZHIKATHU VEEDU, NEDUMPANA.P.O, KOLLAM. 2. NADIYA, -DO- 3. JASSIM, -DO- 4. SAINALA BEEVI, -DO- 5. ISHA BEEVI, SHAMLA MANZIL, PEROOR, TKM COLLEGE.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY, KOLLAM-691015. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.NO.664 OF 2008 IN W.P.(c).No.25272 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioners seek a review of my judgment on various grounds. I have heard Sri.B.Suresh Kumar, counsel for the review petitioner and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader. Though various grounds have been raised, Sri.B.Suresh Kumar would submit that the petitioners will be satisfied if they are paid all the statutory benefits under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation which has been re-determined under Ext.P2 award and other similar awards in favour of the other petitioners. 2. Having regard to the principles laid down by this court in Koruthukochukutty v. State of Kerala ( 2000(1) KLT 26) and Kamalakshi Amma v. Special Tahsildar ( 2004(2)KLT 716) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manipur Tea Co.Pvt.Ltd v. Collector of Hailakandi ( AIR 1997 SC 1779), the petitioner's claim for statutory benefits under Section 34 on the redetermined RP.No.664/08 2 compensation is well founded. Ext.P2 will show that the amount which is payable as redetermined compensation to the first petitioner is Rs.49,840.25 and interest at the rates of 9% and 15% has been calculated only on the enhanced market land value of Rs.37578.55. Interest should have been calculated in accordance with the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India ( 2001(3)KLT 489 (SC) and interest should have been calculated on the redetermined compensation. The grievance that eligible statutory interest has not been paid to the petitioners seems to have some genuineness. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the land acquisition officer should have a look at the grievances of the petitioners and should redress the grievances, if it is found that they have not been paid the eligible interest. Accordingly, I dispose of the review petition permitting the petitioners to file applications before the land acquisition officer seeking modification of the awards passed in their favour under Section 28A. If such applications are received by the land acquisition officer within one month of the petitioners RP.No.664/08 3 receiving copy of this order, land acquisition officer will consider those applications and pass appropriate orders ensuring that all the petitioners receive the interest which is due to them under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as explained by the judgments referred to above. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. RP.No.664/08 4