IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 875 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.235/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------- KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., (NOW M/S.BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD), MARADU PO, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DY.GENERAL MANAGER (E&C). BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & 1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- 1. SANKARAN NAIR, S/O.PARVATHY AMMA, THEKEDATH, PUTHENPURA, KIZHIKAD, PUTHENCRUZ. 2. DEVAKI AMMA, D/O.PARVATHY AMMA, THEKEDATH, PUTHENPURA, KIZHIKAD, PUTHENCRUZ. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN FOR R1,2 SMT.ALICE THOMAS FOR R1,2 SRI.T.T.HARIKUMAR FOR R1,2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.875 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 29thday of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal is preferred by the requisitioning authority Kochi Refineries Ltd. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification, which was published on 9/7/2002. The property was in Puthencruz Village. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.34,800/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimant produced Exts.A1 to A8 documents. The learned Sub Judge noticed that, going by Exts.A1 to A8, the land value at the relevant time will be between Rs.20,000/- and 35,000/- per cent. The learned Sub Judge would refix the land value of the properties under acquisition in this appeal at the rate of Rs.55,685/- per Are. 2. Smt.Thusara James, learned counsel for the appellant addressed us extensively and strenuously. She would assail the judgment on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. Sri. T.B.Thankappan, learned counsel for the respondent would defend the impugned judgment on the various reasons LAA.No.875/2007 2 stated in the judgment. 3. Having considered the rival submissions and having scanned the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Sub Judge regarding market value is founded on legal evidence, which was available on record. According to us, it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time, which has been arrived at by the learned Sub Judge. Ext.A3 document itself was in respect of fairly large extent of land 85 cents. Under Ext.A3, centage value of the property was Rs.30,000/-. Based on Ext.A3 itself, the present enhancement which incidentally comes to 60% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer can be justified. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the Execution Court is taking the view that the claimants are not eligible for solatium at 30% of the enhanced land value awarded under the impugned judgment, on the reason that nothing is mentioned about solatium in the impugned judgment. It is needless to mention that solatium is a statutory benefit to which all claimants are eligible under Section 23 (2) of the Act. It is, LAA.No.875/2007 3 therefore, clarified that the requisitioning authority will be bound to facilitate deposit of the solatium at 30% of the enhanced market value fixed under the judgment of the Reference Court as approved by us by this judgment. The Appeal dismissed subject to the above clarification. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk