AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Pius C. Kuriakose
The claimant is the appellant. His land in Chirakkadavu village was acquired for the purpose of making improvements to the Ponkunnam Bus Stand. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs. 1,12,148/- per cent and the Reference Court under the impugned award has re-fixed the land value at Rs. 2,24,295/- per cent. In the memorandum of appeal it is urged that the market value re- fixed by the Reference Court is inadequate. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. T.R. Harikumar the learned Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority and Sri. C.R. Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
Sri. Harikumar the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority would draw our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.862/07 and submit that the market value may have to be re-fixed at Rs. 1,30,000/- per cent.
The learned counsel for the appellant per contra would draw our attention to the judgment of this Court in LA.A.301/06 and Cross Objections No. 85/06 and submitted that the market value of the identical land has been re-fixed to Rs. 1,40,000/- per cent. Counsel for the appellant therefore, requested that the appeal be allowed and the market value be re-fixed at Rs. 1,40,000/- per cent.
We have considered the rival submissions. We have carefully gone through the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.862/07 and LAA.301/06. We are not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment and decree in LAA.301/06 is to be followed. We find that for the property covered by that judgment the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a higher value than the value which had been awarded for the property under acquisition in this case. We follow only the judgment in LAA.862/07. The appeal is allowed re-fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 1,30,000/- per cent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. But during the period by which the filing of the appeal was delayed (i.e. 87 days), the appellant will not be eligible for interest u/s 28. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.