IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM LA.App..No. 437 of 2006(D) 1. DR. SEETHA LAKSHMI @ DR.SWATHI K. VASU, ... Petitioner Vs 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM Dated :21/05/2010 O R D E R PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.437 of 2006 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T
This appeal by the claimant pertains to acquisition
of land in Elayavoor village for the purpose of Chovva Nadal
Byepass pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on
1.11.1997. Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at
Rs.5000/- per cent (roughly). The reference court refixed
land value at Rs.7,500/- per cent. Even though Exts.A1 to A3
documents were produced and Advocate Commissioner in
Ext.X1 report stated that properties covered by Exts.A1 to A3
are comparable with the property under acquisition, the
court below did not place any reliance on Exts.A1 to A3. The
court below noticed that in several other cases pertaining to
the same acquisition, uniform rate of Rs.7,500/- per cent has
been fixed and hence became inclined to refix the land value
at Rs.7,500/- per cent only.
2. Various grounds have been raised in this appeal
and Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal, learned counsel for the appellant
addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. All
those arguments were stiffly resisted by Smt. Latha T.
Thankappan, Senior Government Pleader. Our attention is
drawn by Mr.Kaimal to the judgment of this court in
LAA.No.1225/2005. Records pertaining to that case were
incorporated and it is seen that the above case was in
respect of acquisition of identical land for the same purpose
pursuant to the same notification. It is seen that under that
judgment this court did not interfere with the decision of the
reference court to refix the land value at Rs.24,194/- per Are.
We would have been inclined to allow the appeal by refixing
land value at Rs.25,194/- per Are. But it is brought to our
notice by the Government Pleader that the appellant’s claim
before the officer as well as the court was limited to
Rs.9,850/- per cent. Accordingly, in modification of the
impugned judgment we refix the land value of the property
under acquisition at Rs.9,850/- per cent, corresponding to
Rs.24,314/- per Are. Appeal is allowed to the above extent.
The appellant/claimant will be entitled for all statutory
benefits admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of
the Land Acquisition Act.
3. However, while drafting the decree the Registry
will have due regard to the direction of this court in the
order condoning the delay. This means that during the
period of delay condoned by this court the total enhanced
compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible
under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Appeal is
allowed but without any order as to costs. The order in
CMA.No.661/2006 stands modified to the above extent.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.