Remanded

State of Kerala v. M.Rahim and Another

Kerala HC12 Aug 2010LA.App./235/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an acquisition appeal by setting aside the lower court's judgment and decree. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the land acquisition reference court with a direction to pass a revised judgment within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; matter remanded to the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for a fresh decision within four months.

State of Kerala Vs M.Rahim and Another — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932

¶4

LA.App..No. 235 of 2010(C) ------------------------------LAR.111/2005 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM ....................

¶5

APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT

¶6

¶7

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS

¶10

¶11

M. RAHIM, RAHIM MANZIL, T.C. 31/123, CHACKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H. DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R1

¶14

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

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

¶16

L. A. A. No.235 of 2010

¶17

Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2010

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶20

This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Pettah village for the purpose of widening of road from Chakai junction. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 22/04/02. As against rate of Rs.1,70,430/- per Are awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court relied on

¶21

Ext.A2 and re-fixed the land value at

¶22

Rs.16,54,307/- per Are.

¶23

It is submitted by Smt.Latha T.

¶24

Thankappan, the learned senior Government

¶25

L. A. A. No.235 of 2010

¶26

-2-

¶27

Pleader that Ext.A2 was in respect of acquisition about one and a half years later and that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded much higher value than what was awarded to the present respondent. Smt.Latha pointed out that this Court interfered with Ext.A2 and reduced the value to Rs.14 lakhs. According to Smt.Latha, in this particular case even Rs.14 lakhs cannot be granted as the property here is inferior to the property under Ext.A2. Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the respondent, however, would oppose the submission of the learned senior Government Pleader. He highlighted that the property involved in this case was on the very Chakai junction. In view of the locational advantages there is every justification for

¶28

-3-

¶29

L. A. A. No.235 of 2010

¶30

sustaining the impugned judgment, according to him.

¶31

We have anxiously considered the rival

¶32

submissions addressed at the Bar. We notice that

¶33

the claim of the respondent before the court below was only for Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. We do not know how the learned Subordinate Judge could award more than the above rate to the respondent. Sri.Lal George submitted that it is not correct to say that the claimant claimed only Rs.2,50,000/ per cent-. He requested that at any rate the claimant should be allowed to amend the claim statement. We are not prepared to allow the request straightaway. We set aside the judgment and decree and remand L.A.R.111/2005

¶34

to the Second Additional Sub Court,

¶35

L. A. A. No.235 of 2010 -4-

¶36

Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence. On the basis of the entire evidence available on record, the revised judgment will be passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, at the earliest, and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment.

¶37

This appeal is thus, allowed by way of

¶38

remand.

¶39

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶40

C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶41

kns/-

State of Kerala v. M.Rahim and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. M.Rahim 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

K.Aboobacker Vs the Spl.Tahsildar

State of Kerala Vs Chakrapani

State of Kerala,Rep.by Dt.Collector,Tvm. Vs Prasanna Madhavan Nair and Another

State of Kerala Vs Santhamma

State of Kerala Vs Fathima

State of Kerala Vs Raveendran