Court dismissed two land acquisition appeals challenging the fixation of compensation. The appellate court upheld the lower court's reliance on a document executed prior to the notification, rejecting the appellant's contention of error and finding the classification of values reasonable.
The appeals are dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 17TH MAGHA 1928
LA.App..No. 17 of 2003()
-----------------------LAR.156/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT: RESPONDENT
STATE OF KERALA
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR
RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT
POOYAMMAL ABDURAHIMAN, NALLALAM P.O. KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2007, ALONG WITH L.A.ANO.961/2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN,JJ.
L.A.A.Nos. 17 & 961 of 2003
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2007
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph,J.
These appeals are filed against common judgment dated 17-82001 in L.A.R.No.148/1999 and connected cases. The acquisition is for the purpose of widening of Modern-Kolathara Road. It is the main contention of the learned Government Pleader that the court below grossly erred in relying on Ext.A1 document which is purportedly created for the purpose of claiming enhanced compensation. The court below has rightly rejected the contention noting that Ext.A1 document is executed in March, 1996 whereas the Section 4(1) notification is only on 19-8-1996. There is no evidence on behalf of the appellant.
The court below further found on the basis of the evidence that the property covered by Ext.A1 and the acquired property are in the same village. The property having road frontage alone is given value as that of Ext.A1 and those lands not having road frontage but situated adjacent to Ext.A1 property are given only lesser value, namely
L.A.A. Nos.17 & 961/2003
-:2:-
Rs.30,000/-. Ext.C1 and the evidence of AW1 would show that the acquired property was similar to Ext.A1 property. In the absence of any contra evidence the reference court rightly held that the claimants were entitled to have a just and fair fixation of the land value at the rate shown in Ext.A1 document which is executed six months prior to Section 4(1) notification. A reasonable classification has also been adopted by awarding a lesser compensation with a difference of Rs.10,000/- per cent in respect of the property having no road frontage. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.
(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE)
ahg.
KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ.
L.A.A.Nos. 17 & 961 of 2003
JUDGMENT
6th February, 2007
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the awarding court correctly relied on an earlier executed document to fix enhanced compensation in the absence of contra evidence.
Whether the classification adopted for properties with road frontage versus those without was reasonable.
POOYAMMAL ABDURAHIMAN
STATE OF KERALA
KURIAN JOSEPH
K.T. SANKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
