IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 419 of 2008(D)
1. A. KRISHNAMMA,
... Petitioner
2. K.S. AIYA DEVI,
3. K.S. INDIRA DEVI,
4. K.S. SIVAKUMAR,
5. K.S. SASIKUMAR,
6. K.S. GIRI RAJ,
7. K.S. BABURAJ,
8. K.S. JAYACHANDRAN,
9. K.S. SIVAPRASAD,
10. K.S. USHA DEVI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA (SPL.TAHSILDAR, LA,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :20/10/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------
LAA. Nos. 419 & 420 of 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The claimants are the appellants in these cases. The
properties were in Pettah Village. The acquisition was for the
purpose of the International Airport Authority. The relevant
section 4(1) notification was published on 4-2-1999. The
L.A. Officer included the lands under acquisition in category
No. V, i.e., wet lands partly converted into dry lands forming
bunds and cultivated with coconut trees but surrounded by
water in the low lying areas between bunds at Block No.2,
Chakkai. Before the reference court the claimants produced
Ext.A1 sale deed and Ext.A2 judgment. Ext.A1 sale deed
was rejected by the learned Sub Judge on the reason that
on the property covered by that sale deed, there existed a
very substantial building which was not separately valued.
Ext.A2 judgment was also rejected for the reason that
LAA. 419 & 420 of 2008
– 2 –
Ext.A2 pertains to lands in category – IV which even
according to the L.A. Officer’s award was two times valuable
than the lands under acquisition. Smt.Zohara, learned
counsel for the appellants submitted that the lands under
acquisition were eligible to be included in category – IV or in
a still higher category. She also submitted that the court
below did not award the additional amount under section 23
(1A) during the entire period mentioned in the statute.
2. All the submissions of Smt.Zohara were resisted
effectively by Mr.Basant Balaji, Senior Govt. Pleader. We
have gone through the impugned judgment. We have made
a quick re-appraisal of the evidence. We are of the view
that the court below was perfectly justified in not placing
reliance on Exts.A1 and A2. Once A1 and A2 are eschewed
from consideration we don’t find any tangible legal evidence
in support of the appellant’s claim for enhancement. As for
the arguments of the learned counsel that the properties
LAA. 419 & 420 of 2008
– 3 –
were enjoying the direct frontage of the road and that they
were dry lands, we do not find any acceptable evidence such
as reports by local inspection commissioners. In the absence
of such acceptable evidence, it is difficult to accept the
argument. As for the complaint of the learned counsel that
the appellants were not awarded the additional amount
calculated at 12% under Section 23(1A) during the entire
period from the date of Section 4(1) notification till date of
the award, the land acquisition officer’s explanation is that
during the period for which the amounts were not awarded
the acquisition proceedings were under stay. On going
through the records we find that during certain periods the
land acquisition proceedings were under stay and this was
why amount under Section 23 (1A) was not granted during
the period of stay. It is also seen that willingness was
expressed in writing by the claimants later. The claimants
were awarded amounts under Section 23(1A) also till the
LAA. 419 & 420 of 2008
– 4 –
date of passage of the award from the date of expression
of willingness. Despite the very persuasive submissions of
Smt.Zohara we do not find any infirmity in the judgments
impugned. Mr.Basant Balaji would point out that in LAR.
No. 408 of 2003 a mistake has been committed while
mentioning the dates for the purpose of award of interest
under Section 28. We give opportunity to the Government
to move the learned Sub Judge for appropriate corrections
invoking Sections 152 and 153 of the Code. Appeals are
dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to
costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
ksv/-