Remanded

Margret Sunny v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2011LA.App./1315/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two- judge High Court bench set aside the Sub-Court's judgment and decree in a land acquisition appeal concerning the Veli Tourism Project, remanding the case for a fresh decision with opportunity to adduce evidence and consider the entire acquired extent.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree set aside; case remanded to 2nd Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, for passing a revised judgment after allowing parties to adduce further evidence. Full court fee remitted.

Margret Sunny 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶4

LA.App..No. 1315 of 2010(C)

¶5

--------------------------LAR.16/2001 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS :-

¶7

-----------------------------------------

¶8

1. MARGRET SUNNY, D/O.CARMEL ROSSARIO, AGED 70 YEARS, FORMERLY RESIDING AT T.C.29/1189, VALIYATHOPPIL, PETTAH VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND NOW RESIDING AT T.C.34/895, CARMEL COMPOUND, VALIYATHOPPU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. HAZEL MARQUIS, D/O.CARMEL ROSSARIO, AGED 69 YEARS, FORMERLY RESIDING AT T.C.29/1189, VALIYATHOPPIL, PETTAH VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND NOW RESIDING AT T.C.34/895, CARMEL COMPOUND, VALIYATHOPPU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3. JESSY ANSALAM, D/O.CARMEL ROSSARIO, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C.29/1189, VALIYATHOPPIL, PETTAH VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND NOW RESIDING AT ANUGRAH, CARMEL COMPOUND, VALIYATHOPPU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.AJAKUMAR SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :-

¶13

-----------------------------------------------

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. THE DIRECTOR, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TOURISM, VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN

¶17

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

jvt

¶19

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

¶20

L.A.A. No.1315 of 2010

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of March 2011

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶24

Claimants are in appeal. The properties under acquisition was in Kadakampally Village and the purpose of acquisition was for Veli Tourism Project. Section 4(1) notification was published on 9.3.1998. The properties involved in this case were included in categories C and D by the L.A.Officer. For C category properties, he awarded value at the rate of Rs.37,513/- per Are. For D category properties which was described as marshy lands, he awarded Rs.14,820/- per Are. Under the impugned judgment the market value of properties included in categories C and D were refixed respectively at Rs.1,00,000/- per Are and Rs.50,000/- per Are.

¶25

We have heard the extensive arguments addressed by Sri.V.Ajakumar, the learned counsel for the appellants and

¶26

L.A.A. No.1315 of 2010

¶27

-: 2 :-

¶28

Smt.T.T.Josephina, the learned Sr.Govt. Pleader for the Government. We have considered those submissions and also gone through the impugned judgment. We have also taken into account the common judgment delivered today in L.A.A.Nos.1167/2008, 1450/2008 and 2014/2008 which were appeals in respect of acquisition for the same purpose of land in the same Village but pursuant to a subsequent former notification. In fact, the learned Sub Judge under the impugned judgment relied on the common judgment passed by him in those three cases. We have already set aside the judgment and decree which were impugned in L.A.A.Nos.1167/2008, 1450/2008 and 2014/2008 and remanded the L.A.Rs therein for a fresh decision. Having considered the submissions addressed and having scanned the impugned judgment and having taken into account the circumstances that Ext.A15 judgment relied on by the learned Sub Judge already set aside by us, we feel that there is justification for a reconsideration of this case also by the learned Sub Judge. Hence, we set aside the judgment and decree and remand L.A.R.No.16/2001 to the 2^nd Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That court is directed to afford

¶29

L.A.A. No.1315 of 2010

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence and to pass revised judgment based on the evidence already on record and any evidence which the parties may adduce further. The parties will enter appearance before the court below on 18.3.2011. The learned Sub Judge will make every endeavour to complete the enquiry and pass revised judgment early within two months of the court re-opening after mid summer vacation. It is needless to mention that all issues including the grievance of the appellant that they were not awarded compensation for the entire extents which were actually taken over should be considered by the learned Sub Judge also. Refund the full court fee remitted to the appeal memo to the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶32

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶33

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶34

Jvt

Margret Sunny v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Margret Sunny 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreekumar @ Kumar, C.NO.6449, Tvm Vs State of Kerala

Kochi International Airport Society Vs Janaki Amma

State of Kerala Vs R.Srinivasan

Sarojini Ramadevi Vs State of Kerala

V.Krishnan Asari Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Josephine Vs Hridayaraj and Anr.