High Court Kerala High Court

Koonichiere Narayanan vs The District Collector on 24 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Koonichiere Narayanan vs The District Collector on 24 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 1222 of 2010()


1. KOONICHIERE NARAYANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670001.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LAND ACQUISTION)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

 Dated :24/01/2011

 O R D E R
        PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
                       ------------------------
                    L.A.A.No.1222 OF 2010
                       ------------------------

           Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011

                            JUDGMENT

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

The claimant in a reference under Section 28A(3) is the

appellant. The ground prominently raised by the appellant is

that the Reference Court went wrong in not relying on the court

award, which was relied on by the appellant in a subsequent

application under Section 28A, which was filed by him on

noticing that no action was being taken on 28A application

filed by him originally.

2. The above ground does not appeal to us. Admittedly,

the application under Section 28A filed by the appellant originally

was allowed by the Land Acquisition Officer though belatedly.

The Land Acquisition Officer, having allowed the application filed

by the appellant, could have relied only on the court award

relied on in that application. When that is done the market

value could have been redetermined only at the rate of

Rs.1,500/- per cent. That is what has been done by the Land

LAA.No.1222/2010 2

Acquisition Officer as well as by the Reference Court.

3. The other ground, which is raised by the appellant, is

that due statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23

(1A) and 28 of the Act on the redetermined land value has not

been awarded. A reading of the operative portion of the

impugned judgment will indicate that there is some substance

in the above ground raised by the appellant. Hence, we deem it

necessary to issue the following clarifications.;

It is clarified that the total market value of land due to the

appellant will be determined at the rate of Rs.1500/- per cent.

On the total market value redetermined as above, the appellant

will be entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% under Section

23(2). He will also be entitled for an additional amount under

Section 23(1A) on the market value redetermined during the

period from 22.2.1983 till 16/3/1984 at 12%. On the above

amount (redetermined market value of land + redetermined

solatium), he will be entitled for interest at the rate of 9%

during the first year from 5/4/1984 and thereafter at the rate of

15% per annum. It is from the total compensation to be

determined as above, that the sum of Rs. 3,06,879.69/- paid

LAA.No.1222/2010 3

to him by the LAO is to be deducted.

We dismiss the above appeal subject to the above

clarifications.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk