Dismissed

State of Kerala Rep; by Dist.,Collector v. Musthafa and Another

Kerala HC6 Apr 2009LA.App./411/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondents challenged the enhanced market value of land acquired for junction improvements. The High Court found the acquired properties were superior and the delay in notification justified the higher rate. The appeal was dismissed in limine without interference.

What did the court decide?

The land acquisition appeal was dismissed in limine with no interference in the impugned judgment.

State of Kerala Rep; by Dist.,Collector Vs Musthafa and… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶5

MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶6

LA.App..No. 411 of 2009() ------------------------LAR.11/2005 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT

¶8

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS.

¶12

¶13

MUSTHAFA, S/O.HAMEED, THOTTUMKARAYIL, EDAVETTY.

¶14

MISSIRI, W/O.MUSTHAFA, THOTTUMKARAYIL, EDAVETTY.

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.

¶17

¶18

L.A.A.No.411 OF 2009

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 6^th day of April, 2009

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.

¶22

This appeal pertains to acquisition of land within the area of Thodupuzha Municipality for the purpose of improvements of Mangattukavala junction. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 17/09/2003. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 19,923/- per cent. This was enhanced by the reference court to Rs. 1,24,500/- per cent. The reference court relied on Ext.A2 judgment of the same court in L.A.R.No.88/2003 and also sale deed Ext.A4. In fact, there was appeal against Ext.A2 and a Division Bench of this court to which one of us ( Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.) was also party, interfered with Ext.A2 to the limited extent of reducing the market value of land which had been refixed under Ext.A2 at Rs. 82,500/-.

¶23

We have gone through the judgment in the appeal against Ext.A2. As already noticed apart from Ext.A2, before the reference court there

¶24

LAA.No.411/09 2

¶25

was Ext.A4 sale deed also. Having gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of this court in L.A.A.No.121/2008 series ( appeals against Ext.A2), we have no doubt in our mind that the acquired properties in this case were far superior to the properties covered by Ext.A2. These properties were situated on the very junction itself. More over we notice that three years time had passed before the relevant section 4(1) notification in this case was issued. For all these reasons, there is no warrant for interfering with the impugned judgment. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine.

¶26

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶27

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶28

sv.

¶29

LAA.No.411/09 2

State of Kerala Rep; by Dist.,Collector v. Musthafa and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala Rep; by Dist.,Collector v. Musthafa and Another

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

Yohannan Joy Vs State of Kerala

The Sr. Regional Manager Fci Vs Krishnan Nair

State of Kerala Vs Mary Varghese

State of Kerala Vs Sugathan

P.J.Paul Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Moothatt Ramakrishnan