Partly allowed

Managing Director, Ksidc v. Paramban Vasu and Another

Kerala HC4 Mar 2011LA.App./21/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the land acquisition appeal preferred by KSIDC, setting aside the Lower Reference Court's decision. The matter was remanded to re-fix the market value afresh, ensuring parties are heard and consistent with prior judgments.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned judgment and decree were set aside; and the LAR was remanded to fix the market value afresh.

Managing Director, Ksidc Vs Paramban Vasu and Another — 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 FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶4

LA.App..No. 21 of 2011(A) ----------------------------LAR.364/2005 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY ....................

¶5

APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.2

¶6

¶7

MANAGING DIRECTOR,KSIDC,REP.BY ASST. GENERAL MANAGER,KSIDC,KESTON ROAD,KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND R1

¶10

¶11

PARAMBAN VASU,AASARIPARAMBU, CHERUVANCHERRY-670650.

¶12

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A, THALASSERY-679532.

¶13

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN

¶14

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

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

¶16

L. A. A. No.21 of 2011

¶17

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2011

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶20

Even though the respondents have been served with

¶21

notice, they have not turned up before this Court to resist this appeal preferred by the Requisitioning Authority M/s KSIDC. Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel for the appellant would draw our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.464/08 and submit that under that judgment this Court interfered with the judgment of the Reference Court in an identical matter and remanded the LAR with direction to re-fix the market value. According to him, the same course is to be adopted in this case also. We do not find any reason not to accept the submission of Sri.Joby Cyriac. Hence, we set aside the judgment and decree under

¶22

L. A. A. No.21 of 2011 -2-

¶23

appeal and remand LAR.364/05 to the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery. That court is directed to fix the market value of the land under acquisition afresh after affording opportunity to all parties to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. While re-fixing the market value, the court will have due regard to the observations of this Court in its judgment in L.A.A.464/08. A copy of the above judgment will be placed before the learned Subordinate Judge by the Requisitioning Authority. The Registry will not re-fund the court fee remitted on the appeal memo.

¶24

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶25

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶26

kns/-

¶27

L. A. A. No.21 of 2011 -3-

Managing Director, Ksidc v. Paramban Vasu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director, Ksidc v. Paramban Vasu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soj, S/O.Kamalolbhavan Vs State of Kerala

General Manager Vs K.K. Abdul Majeed

State Vs Devaki Amma

State of Kerala Vs B.Radhamani

The Secretary, Hosdurg Service Co-Op.Ban Vs the Special Tahsildar and Others

State of Kerala Vs Sankaran Kutty