The High Court set aside the Land Acquisition Award deemed inadequate, relying on a prior judgment in LAA.253/06. The Reference Case LAR.91/03 was remanded to the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, for a fresh determination after allowing further evidence.
Impugned judgment and decree set aside; Land Acquisition Reference remanded for fresh decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932
LA.App..No. 226 of 2006 (B) -------------------------------LAR.91/2003 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT
RASHEEDA BEEVI, W/O.SHAMSUDEEN ISMALIYA BUILDING, THALAYOLAPARAMBU.
BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------L. A. A. No.226 of 2006
-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
In this appeal by the claimant, she challenges award of the Land Acquisition Reference Court on the ground that the compensation re-determined by the court is inadequate. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/07/99. The property was in Vadayar village. The purpose was construction of approach road to Palamkadavu Bridge. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Mathew Philip to the judgment of this Court in LAA.253/06 to which one among us [PCK(J)] is party. It is seen from that judgment that this Court has under that judgment interfered with an identical judgment passed by the same Land Acquisition Reference Court and remanded the LAR to the court below for a fresh decision. For the various reasons stated in the judgment in
L. A. A. No.226 of 2006 -2-
LAA.253/06, the judgment impugned in this appeal is liable to be interfered with. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand LAR.91/03 to the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam for a fresh decision. We direct the learned Subordinate Judge to permit both parties to adduce further evidence if they are desirous of. That court will pass the revised judgment taking into account the evidence already on record and further evidence which may be adduced by the parties. Parties will enter appearance before the court below on 03/02/11. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to refund the full court fee remitted on the appeal memo. Registry will refund ½ of the court fee remitted, provided full court fee is remitted by the appellant.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE
kns/-
L. A. A. No.226 of 2006 -3-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the award of compensation by the Land Acquisition Reference Court is inadequate and liable to be interfered with.
Whether the impugned judgment and decree should be set aside and the Reference remanded for a fresh decision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
LAA.253/06Relied on¶20
Rasheeda Beevi, w/o. Shamsudeen
State of Kerala, represented by District Collector, Kottayam
Pius C. Kuriakose
N. K. Balakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
