Dismissed

Inland Waterways Authority of India v. Christy Vallantheen

Kerala HC9 Feb 2011LA.App./159/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed land acquisition appeals filed by the Inland Waterways Authority of India. The bench held that the enhancement in compensation awarded was within established judicial precedent and the shifting charges claim was not unreasonable given the circumstances, despite lack of specific evidence.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals (L.A.A. Nos. 158 and 159 of 2011) were dismissed in limine.

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Christy Vallantheen — 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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 159 of 2011() ------------------------LAR.17/2004 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT:

¶7

-------------INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE

¶8

\ AT PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD KOCHI – 682 018, (NOW OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.1/631/A.KANADIKADU AREA, MARADU P.O. KOCHI 682 3040 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS AND FIRST RESPONDENT. :

¶11

¶12

CHRISTY VALLANTHEEN, ANTONY'S HOUSE, KOVILTHOTTAM CHAVARA, KOLLAM 691 583.

¶13

FRANCIS, ANTONY'S HOUSE, KOVILTHOTTAM CHAVARA, KOLLAM 691 583

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM 691 001.

¶15

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA.

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011, ALONG WITH LA.A. NO.158/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

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

¶18

L.A.A.Nos. 158 & 159 OF 2011

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2011

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶22

The requisitioning authority – M/s. Inland Waterways Authority of India is in appeal. On going through the impugned judgments, we feel that enhancement granted for the properties in Kollam East Village and Panmana village of Kollam District is just 60% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. We notice earlier judgments of this court by which enhancement at the above rate has been approved.

¶23

In L.A.A. No.159/2011, we find that a sum of Rs.7,500/is awarded towards shifting charges. Even though we find that fairly strong grounds have been raised against such award on the reason that there is no supporting evidence for such award we feel, having regard to the totality of the circumstances attending in the case, that the amount awarded towards that count is not unreasonable.

¶24

Both the appeals will stand dismissed in limine. However,

¶25

L.A.A. .No.158 & 159/2011 2

¶26

we make it clear that in case the claimants prefer appeals against the impugned judgment, this judgment will not preclude the appellant from raising the grounds raised in these appeal memoranda against those appeals.

¶27

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶28

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶29

dpk

Inland Waterways Authority of India v. Christy Vallantheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inland Waterways Authority of India v. Christy Vallantheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Scientific&Industrial Research Director Vs a.R.Padmini Bai

St.Mary'S Forine Church Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Bhasura Devi

S.Sathi Devi Vs State of Kerala

I.G.Asokan Vs Special Tahsildar (La)

State of Kerala Vs C.I.Premnath