Remanded

Kayaroth Kuniyil Karthiyani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2011LA.App./1021/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a land acquisition appeal by remanding the matter to the reference court to permit both sides to adduce further evidence regarding land value, set aside the original decision, and imposed a penalty on the appellant for failing to produce relevant documents initially.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree are set aside. Reference No. 219 of 2001 is remanded to adduce further evidence. Enhanced compensation during remand period carries no interest.

Kayaroth Kuniyil Karthiyani Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932

¶6

LA.App..No. 1021 of 2004()

¶7

-------------------------LAR.219/2001 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY

¶8

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶9

¶10

KAYAROTH KUNIYIL KARTHIYANI W/O. BHARATHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, KUNIYIL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PONNIAM P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN

¶12

SMT.P.GOPIKA

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2

¶18

GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R1

¶19

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶21

LAA. No. 1021 of 2004

¶22

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2011

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶25

The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Eranholi Village in Thalassery Taluk was acquired for the purpose of KINFRA. He was awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2500/- per cent. Reference court did not enhance the land value at all. The claimant had given oral evidence as AW-1. Having gone through the impugned judgment we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in declining any enhancement as no document and much less any sale deed had been produced by the appellant to show that the market value at the relevant time was more than what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. In fact, the ground which is prominently raised in this appeal is that the court below did not afford sufficient opportunity to the appellant for adducing evidence. Today when the appeal

¶26

-2-

¶27

came up for hearing it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue is covered by judgment of this Court in LAA. No. 451 of 2008 whereby for identical property acquired for the same purpose this court has refixed the land value at Rs.4800/- per cent. We are not inclined to rely straight away on the judgment in LAA. No. 451 of 2008. It is for the appellant to produce the said judgment before the reference court if the said judgment has probative value and relevance. We are inclined to remand the matter to the reference court. As the appellant herself is responsible for not producing the relevant document in the first instance the appellant should pay a penalty.

¶28

Result of the above discussion is as follows:

¶29

The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. LAR. No. 219 of 2001 is remanded to the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. That court will permit both sides to

¶30

-3-

¶31

adduce further evidence if they are desirous of. Appellant can produce copy of the judgment in LAA. No. 451 of 2008. The learned Judge will pass revised judgment on the basis of the evidence which comes on record. However, it is ordered that during the period from 28-2-2004 till this date (14-01-2011) the enhanced compensation if any to be awarded by the reference court pursuant to this judgment of remand will not carry interest otherwise admissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties will appear before the reference court on 24-2-2011. The registry will refund only 75% of the full court fee remitted on the appeal memo.

¶32

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶33

(N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶34

ksv/-

¶35

-4-

Kayaroth Kuniyil Karthiyani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kayaroth Kuniyil Karthiyani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.R. Ratheesh Chandran Vs Sarojini Amma

Jown Juma Masjid Vs K.a.Stepehn

Allyamma Kuruvila Vs Kuruvila John

M.C.Nalini Vs Special Thasildar

M.C.Bharathan Vs Special Tahasildar

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Ragini and Another