Disposed

Lekshmikutty Amma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jan 2011LA.App./93/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court permitted the claimant in a land acquisition reference appeal to move the reference court for correction regarding the categorization of her property under Sections 152 and 153 of the CPC while refraining from making final findings on enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the petitioner to move the reference court for correction of the judgment under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Lekshmikutty Amma 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 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932

¶3

LA.App..No. 93 of 2006() -----------------------LAR. 14/03 OF ADDL. SUB COURT, KOTOTAYAM. APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT:

¶4

¶5

LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, ANANDHA BHAVANAM, KATTAMPAK, NJEZHOOR.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:

¶8

¶9

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K. MOHANAN

¶11

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

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

¶13

LAA. No. 93 of 2006

¶14

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2010

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶17

Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the claimant is the judgment of the land acquisition reference court, Kottayam in LAR. No. 14 of 2003. The property under acquisition was in Njeezhoor Village of Vaikkom Taluk. A portion of the property was included in category - I and another portion was included in category - III. According to the petitioner, the substantial portion of the property was in category - I and only a small extent was in category - III. It was on Ext.A1 judgment in LAR. 271 of 2002 that the claimant relied on in support of her claim for enhanced value. We have gone through Ext.A1. We have gone through the impugned judgment also. We are convinced that Ext.A1 is a judgment which has probative value in the case as the same pertains to acquisition pursuant to the

¶18

LAA. 92/06

¶19

-2-

¶20

same notification for the same purpose and of property in the same village. As for the grievance of the appellant that the court below committed a mistake in including a small portion in category - I and the larger portion in category - III, we are of the view that the petitioner has to file proper application for correction under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the reference court itself. We permit the petitioner to move the reference court for correction. We make it clear that we have not entered any final findings regarding the merits of the appellant's claim for enhanced compensation, but as already stated, Ext. A1 is a relevant judgment.

¶21

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶22

(N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶23

ksv/-

Lekshmikutty Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekshmikutty Amma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Geetha Vs Special Tahsildar L.A

Inland Waterways Auhority of India Vs Geetha and Another

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Mahilamony and Others

Sasidharan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Another

T.K.Sujan Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Saibunniza Vs M/S.Malabar Pioneer Hosiery Pvt. Ltd.