PAULOSE CHACKO (DECEASED) Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prominent ground on which the Petitioners Appellants seek review of our judgment dated 9th July 2010 is that the same was passed without noticing earlier judgment of this Court in LAA. No. 1355 of 2010. According to Mr. N.N. Sugunapalan, senior Counsel, the property involved in that LAA was identical in all respects to the property involved in the present case and it is necessary in the interests of justice that the same value is awarded to the review Petitioners also. There is very stiff opposition from the learned senior Govt. Pleader Smt. Latha T. Thankappan to the request for review. She submitted that the Appellants review Petitioners had limited their claim in the appeal to what is presently granted under our judgment. Such Appellants cannot now aspire for more on the basis of earlier judgment which was not brought to the notice of this Court when the appeal was heard. Mr. Sugunapalan's response to the above submission was that the Appellants original claim before the land acquisition officer as well as before the reference Court was much more than what is claimed in the RP. The Appellants limited their claims in the appeal before this Court only due to their financial constraints at the time of preferring the appeal. Appellants have by now got over the final constraints and have remitted the full Court fee payable on the enhanced claim.

(2.) We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. Having regard to the principles underlying the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act such as Sections 25 and 28A we find merit in the submission of Mr. Sugunapalan that there is necessity to maintain a parity between the compensations awarded to persons whose identical properties were acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. At the same time, we notice force in the submission of Smt. Latha T. Thankappan that the urisdiction of this Court under Order 47 Rule 1 is not to be invoked to advance the interest of fence sitters. We feel that taking into account the relative merits of the rival submissions relief can be given to the review Petitioners to a certain extent. Under the judgment relied on in the review petition the value of the land under acquisition was re-fixed at Rs. 50,000/- per cent. We notice that the property involved in this case is a large extent involving more than 1 acre. If the RP is allowed, the financial commitment for the Government will be considerable unlike other case where the extent was small. We are therefore of the view that considering the largeness of the extent involved in the present RP market value can be fixed at Rs. 45000/- per cent corresponding to Rs. 1,11,195/- per Are. Even the above limited relief we are inclined to grant to the review Petitioners only on imposing proper terms. The result of the above discussion therefore is as follows: