Allowed

Pankajakshy Amma,W/O.Sivaraman Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2011LA.App./54/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a land acquisition appeal, refixing compensation at Rs.50,000 per cent based on a prior judgment. Statutory benefits were granted. A separate order condensed a 696-day delay, imposing costs and restricting interest on enhanced compensation during the condoned period.

What did the court decide?

Market value refixed at Rs.50,000/- per cent; statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A), 28 granted subject to conditions; delay of 696 days condoned with costs and no interest on enhanced compe

Pankajakshy Amma,W/O.Sivaraman Nair Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932

¶3

LA.App..No. 54 of 2011() -----------------------LAR.81/2005 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA ....................

¶4

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶5

¶6

PANKAJAKSHY AMMA,W/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, MUNDAKAL,MANAKKAD REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, MUNDAKAL HOUSE,MANAKKAD,THODUPUZHA.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN SMT.P.B.WAHIDA

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT

¶9

¶10

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,IDUKKI-685603.

¶11

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶12

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

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

¶14

L.A.A.No. 54 OF 2011

¶15

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶18

It is agreed to by both sides that the issue raised by the claimant in this appeal is covered in favour of the claimant by the judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.1355/2009. A copy of that judgment is before us. For the reasons stated in that judgment, this appeal is only to be allowed refixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.50,000/- per cent. It is accordingly refixed.

¶19

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits under Section 23(2), 23 (1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, while the decree is drafted and provision is made for the statutory interest under Section 28, the Section will

¶20

have due regard to the conditions imposed by us in the order dated 21/1/2011 in C.M.Appln.124/2011. The appellant will pay

¶21

L.A.A..No.54/2011

¶22

¶23

balance court fee within three weeks. The Registry will issue decree copy only after ensuring that the balance court fee is paid

¶24

in full.

¶25

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶26

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

dpk

L.A.A..No.54/2011

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

¶31

C.M.Appln.124/2011 in L.A.A.No. 54 OF 2011

¶32

Dated this the 21^th day of January, 2011

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶35

This application seeking condondation of delay of 696 days caused in the matter of filing the appeal is very stiffly opposed by the learned senior Government Pleader. However, on the

¶36

L.A.A..No.54/2011

¶37

¶38

consideration of justice and the consideration that as far as possible causes should be allowed to be adjudicated on merits, we are inclined to condone the delay imposing terms. This application will stand allowed and the delay will stand condoned subject to the following conditions;

¶39

i). The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Government as costs through the office of the Advocate General within 10 days from today.

¶40

ii). The appellant shall pay an equal amount to the High Court Legal Services Committee also within the same time limit.

¶41

Iii). In the event of the appeal being allowed and the appellant becoming eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period of 696 days condoned by this order.

¶42

Annex a copy of this order to the judgment to be passed in the appeal.

¶43

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶44

L.A.A..No.54/2011

¶45

¶46

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶47

dpk

Pankajakshy Amma,W/O.Sivaraman Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankajakshy Amma,W/O.Sivaraman Nair 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Sudha Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs O.T.Abilash

State of Kerala Vs S.Rajeswary

Ulahannan Iype Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Vivekanandan Vs State of Kerala

Parangan Kunhama Vs the District Collector, Kannur and Anr.