This is a single-paragraph order dismissing an appeal and a delay petition in a Land Acquisition case. The court rejected the appeal due to excessive delay and lack of evidence from the claimant, finding the enhancement of compensation unjustified as the acquired land lacked road access.
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
THURSDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2007 / 12TH MAGHA 1928
LA.App..No. 957 of 2005(D)
-------------------------LAR.29/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT: RESPONDENT.
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.KOZHIKODE.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ.
RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS.
BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------C.M.Appln.1350/05 & L.A.A.No.957 of 2005
Dated 1st February, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
Kurian Joseph, J.
There is a delay of 375 days in filing the appeal. On merits, it is seen that the extent involved is only less than 5 cents. The total enhancement given is Rs.60,856/-. The claimant had produced Ext.A1 document and had taken out a commission. He was examined as AW1. Taking note of the evidence thus available on record only, the enhancement was granted. It is also seen that there is no evidence for the State. On the delay, it is seen that the certified copy of the decree and judgment was obtained from the court on 27.5.2004, whereas the appeal was filed only on 30.8.2005. There is no explanation at all for the delay. The reference court has also found that the land covered by the basic document has no road access whereas the property that is acquired is for widening the road. For
LAA NO.957/05
2
all the reasons stated above, we dismiss the delay petition as well as the appeal.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE.
tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ
W.P.(C) NO. OF 2004
J U D G M E N T
Dated 1st February, 2007.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Land Acquisition Appeal should be allowed despite a delay of 375 days and insufficient evidence.
Whether the claimed enhancement in compensation amount is sustainable given the defects in the claim and lack of State evidence.
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.KOZHIKODE
BALAN
THE SECRETARY, CALICUT CORPORATION
KURIAN JOSEPH
K.T.SANKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
