In a land acquisition appeal, the court modified the impugned award because the reference court awarded a higher land value than a previously relied judgment. The court refixed the land value at Rs.809.71 per cent.
The impugned award was modified and the land value was refixed at Rs.809.71 per cent.
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
MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932
LA.App..No. 601 of 2010()
------------------------LAR.151/2007 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR
APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN LAR
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR AND ANOTHER.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.BINDU
RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT IN LAR ------------------------------
SMT.MARIYATHINTE MARIYAM, W/O.N.P.P.MUHAMMED,P.O.PALAKODE,VENGARA.
ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS FOR R1
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
L.A.A.No. 601 OF 2010
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the Government is the award of the Reference Court in a Reference Under Section 28A(3). One ground raised in this appeal has considerable appeal. The ground is that the court below has granted to the respondent more land value than what had been awarded to the party to L.A.R. No.124/1987 which was the judgment relied on by the appellant in his application under Section 28A.
LAA.No.601/2010
2
the impugned award and refix the land value at Rs.809.71 per cent.
The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the entire compensation due as per the impugned judgment has been utilised by the respondent/claimant for purchasing a homestead and that it will be unjust to insist that a portion of the same is refunded. We will only observe that if as and when proceedings under Section 144 of CPC are initiated by the Government, it is open to the appellant to raise all available contentions.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the reference court awarded more land value than what was awarded in a previous judgment relied upon by the appellant.
Whether the land value should be refixed based on the disparity found.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR AND ANOTHER
SMT.MARIYATHINTE MARIYAM
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
