The Kerala High Court held that an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act was not maintainable because the appellant sought a market value redetermination based on a judgment awarding less compensation than subsequent awards in other cases involving the same party.
The appeal was rejected as not maintainable in law; court fee was refunded.
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 WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932
LA.App..No. 37 of 2011(D)
------------------------LAR.258/2007 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT(S): 2ND CLAIMANT
VIJI.P.ISSAC, S/O.ISSAC, PONNAL HOUSE, OORAMANA.
BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA)
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND IST CLAIMANT
NEDILAMATTATHIL HOUSE, OORAMANA-686 730.
BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.T.HANKAPPAN
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
L.A.A.No. 37 OF 2011
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Even though attractive grounds are raised in this appeal
and Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellant made fervent submissions on the basis of those grounds, we are of the considered view that the appeal is not maintainable in law. The appellant filed application under Section 28A seeking redetermination of the market value payable for his property on the basis of court judgment in L.A.R. No.102/2001. The Land Acquisition Officer did not allow the application stating certain technical reasons. The Reference under Section 28A (3) was made to the court and the court under the impugned judgment allowed the Reference and redetermined the market value based on the judgment in L.A.R. No.102/2001. In fact, before the Reference Court the appellant had produced certain subsequent awards under which still higher value had been awarded. According to the Court below, placing reliance on those judgments will amount to conferring on the appellant more benefits than what had been conferred upon the party
L.A.A.No.37/2011
2
to L.A.R. No.102/2001. This court has been taking consistent view that in proceedings under Section 28A the claimant cannot aspire for more value than what has been awarded to the party relying on whose judgment the application under Section 28A is filed. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the appeal is not maintainable and the same will stand rejected.
The Registry will refund the court fee remitted on the appeal memorandum to Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal is maintainable when the claimant seeks redetermination of market value based on a judgment that awards less than subsequent awards in other cases.
Whether a claimant under Section 28A can aspire for value higher than what was awarded in the judgment relied upon.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VIJI.P.ISSAC
STATE OF KERALA
ELDHO VARGHESE
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
