BALACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are filed by the claimants challenging the awards passed by the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short. The properties of the appellants were acquired for the expansion of the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram. The properties are all situate in Pettah Village of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk.

(2.) Section 4(1) notification in all these appeals was published on 4.2.1999 but, the land was taken possession of only in 2002 or 2003. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing land value at Rs. 1,36,616/- per Are for the lands in Category I, Rs. 98, 712/- per Are for the lands in Category II and Rs. 78,743/- per are for the lands included in Category IV. The land value awarded for the other categories are not referred to herein for the reason that the lands that form the subject matter of these appeals have been categorised only under the three categories mentioned above. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought a reference to the Civil Court and thus the matter reached the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The claimants contended that the categorisation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer was wrong. They also contended that the land value awarded was very low. The Reference Court examined the categorisation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and found that the categorisation made was perfectly justified. With regard to the dispute regarding land value, the Reference Court considered the evidence adduced by the claimants and found that they were entitled to enhancement in land value. Accordingly, the land value has been enhanced and fixed at Rs. 2,25,000/- per Are for the lands included under categories I and II and at Rs. 1,50,000/- per Are for the lands included in Category IV. All the claimants have claimed further enhancement in land value.

(3.) The claimants have another complaint that they have not been awarded 12% additional compensation which was payable to them under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The reason for not granting the said additional benefit was because the claimants had filed a Writ Petition before this Court, O.P. No. 9708/99 challenging the land acquisition proceedings and pursuant to an order of stay obtained by them, the acquisition proceedings had been held up. Therefore, according to the Court they were not entitled to claim interest for the period during which the stay order was in operation, as mandated by the Explanation to Section 23(1A) of the Act.