Kerala High Court
C.Surendran vs State Of Kerala on 19 November, 2008
Author: Pius C.Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1620 of 2008(D)
1. C.SURENDRAN, REMA SADANAM, KANTHALAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.L.MOHANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :19/11/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.No.1620 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of November , 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants against the judgment and decree of the reference court in a case pertaining to acquisition for widening of the road from Kovalam-Mukkola reach 1 pursuant to notification under Section 4(1) published on 25-03-2002. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 16407/- per Are. The reference court relying on Exts. A1 and A2 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 42,000/- per Are.
2. In the present appeal, the appellant seeks further enhancement of Rs. 18,000/- so that the total enhancement will come to Rs. 60,000/- per Are. The basis for the request is the judgment and decree of the same reference court in L.A.R.NOs. 293/04 and 327/04. A certified copy of judgment in L.A.R.No.293/04 and 327/04 has been produced by the appellant before this court. That certified copy will form part of the record. On going through that judgment, it is seen that the plea of the appellant that the reference court has granted LAA.No.1620/08 2 enhancement at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per Are for other properties covered by the very same notification for the same purpose treated similar to the subjected properties by the land acquisition officer is correct.
3. The Registry reported that the judgments in L.A.R.Nos. 293/04 and 327/04 have become final. The Government Pleader initially submitted that the period of limitation is not over for preferring appeal. More than a month's time was given to the learned Government Pleader for submitting whether the Government intends to prefer any appeal against L.A.R.Nos. 293/04 and 327/04. It is now reported that there is no intention to prefer appeal.
4. Having regard to the principles underlying Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is necessary that a parity is brought forth amongst the value for properties treated by the land acquisition officer similarly, by the reference court also.
In this appeal the claim is limited to what is awarded to parties in L.A.R. Nos. 293/04 and 327/04. Under the above circumstances, the appeal will stand allowed in full. The judgment and decree under LAA.No.1620/08 3 appeal are set aside and in substitution/modification of the same, there will be a decree for payment of further enhanced compensation of Rs. 8100/- to the appellant over and above the enhancement which is already granted by the reference court. This further enhancement will also carry all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23 (1) A and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will suffer their costs in this appeal.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv.
LAA.No.1620/08 4