Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Laila Beevi

Kerala HC22 Feb 2008LA.App./291/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the land acquisition appeal and the accompanying application for condonation of delay. The court declined to interfere with the compensation fixation for a railway land purchase of 2.80 Ares, citing the small extent and unchallenged evidence regarding the property value and compound wall.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Land acquisition appeal dismissed.

State of Kerala Vs Laila Beevi — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

LA.App..No. 291 of 2004()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN L.A.R. NO.9 OF 1998 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL -------------------------

¶7

APPELLANT: RESPONDENT.

¶8

¶9

STATE OF KERALA.

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN

¶11

RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT.

¶12

¶13

LAILA BEEVI, S.B.MANZIL, CHITTATTUMUKKU, MURICKUMPUZHA.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.SASITH.M.R

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

¶17

L.A.A. NO. 291 OF 2004

¶18

& C.M. APPLICATION NO. 621 OF 2004

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2008

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Kurian Joseph, J.

¶22

C.M. Application No.621 of 2004 is an application to condone the

¶23

delay of 250 days in filing the appeal. On merits it is seen that the acquisition is for the purpose of doubling the railway line at Vailoor Village. The total extent involved is 2.80 Ares. The Land Acquisition officer fixed land value at Rs.14,385/- per Are as against a claim of Rs.50,000/- per cent. The claimant produced Ext.A1 and examined herself and another person as AWs.1 and 2. No evidence was adduced by the respondent.

¶24

Though the reference court found that the claimant could not establish the similarity and comparability of the acquired land with the property covered by Ext.A1, in view of the locational importance of the acquired property, and which was not disputed also, after making some permissible guesswork, the reference court fixed the land value at

¶25

L.A.A.NO.291/2004

¶26

¶27

Rs.30,000/- per Are. For the compound wall, the Land Acquisition Officer granted Rs.9,527/- and in view of the evidence that the compound wall had a length of 48 metres and a height of 8 feet and constructed of granite stones in 1992, the reference court fixed the value at Rs.70,000/-. In view of the unchallenged evidence, we do not think this Court at this stage should interfere with the fixation of land value and compensation. We particularly take note of the fact that the extent involved is only 2.80 Ares.

¶28

The application and the appeal are, therefore, dismissed. I.A. No.1440 of 2004 is also dismissed.

¶29

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶30

(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)

sp/

L.A.A.NO.291/2004

KURAIN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

¶35

L.A.A. .NO.291/2004

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

22ND FEBRUARY, 2008

State of Kerala v. Laila Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Laila Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Philip Eappen Vs Aleyamma Reni Eappan

K.Balakrishnan Vs M.v.Shyamala

State of Kerala Vs Paru

Saidu Muhammed Pillai Vs Bushara Beefam

State of Kerala Vs D.Prabhakaran

State Vs Chellamma Vanajakshy