Partly allowed

Girija Kumari v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2012LA.App./132/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned land acquisition award by the Reference Court in the specified village. It remanded the matter to the Subordinate Court to pass a revised award after fresh evidence, granting the appellant a right to rely on prior judgments.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award by L.A.R. No. 15/2007 is set aside; the case is remanded to the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, for a revised award within four months after the midsummer recess.

Girija Kumari Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/25TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶6

LA.App..No. 132 of 2012 () IN CMCP/25/2011

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMCP.25/2011 LAR.15/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶8

APPELLANT:CLAIMANT IN LAR 15/2007

¶9

GIRIJA KUMARI, D.O. VELAMMA, ASWATHY BHAVAN, KADIYAKONM, CHITHRANAGAR, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.LAL GEORGE SMT.INDUJA M.J.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS IN LAR NO.15/2007

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2. CHIEF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SYAM KUMAR

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

svs

¶17

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. ===================== L.A.A.NO. 132 OF 2012

¶18

===================== Dated this the 15^th day of March 2012

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Pius C.Kuriakose,J.

¶21

The claimant is the appellant. She complains that the compensation refixed by the Reference Court for acquisition of properties in Peroorkada Village for the expansion programme of composite group and IISU of ISRO is inadequate.

¶22

We have heard the submissions of Mr. Lal George, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C.R.Syam Kumar, learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶23

Our attention was drawn by Mr. Lal George to various judgments of this Court in L.A.A.Nos.411/2010, 355/2010, 1136/2010 and 1140/2010 refixing the land

¶24

LAA 132/2011

¶25

¶26

value at higher rates than the value fixed by the Reference Court for properties acquired for the same purpose in the same village included in different categories. Mr. Lal George submitted that this Court, in a good number of cases finally refixed the land value while in other cases passed orders of remand to the Reference Court directing the Reference court to pass revised award taking into account judgments of this Court and materials which may be produced on either sides and keeping in mind the comparability between the properties covered by the decisions finally taken by this Court and property under acquisition. Mr. Lal George requested that in this appeal also, this court may pass an order of remand. Though the request for remand was initially opposed by Mr.C.R.Syamkumar, learned Senior Government Pleader, the submission of Mr.C.R.Syam Kumar ultimately was that if this Court was inclined to pass an order of remand, adequate conditions for protecting the interest of the State

¶27

LAA 132/2011

¶28

¶29

should be incorporated.

¶30

Having considered the rival submissions, we are of

¶31

the view that an order of remand can be passed after setting aside the impugned award. Hence, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand L.A.R.No.15/2007 to the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thriuvananthapuram. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to pass a revised award after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence. It is open to the appellant to rely on judgments of this Court and it is always open to the Government to show that there is no comparability between the properties under acquisition and the property covered by judgments of this Court. This order of remand will be subject to a condition that if under the revised award, the learned Subordinate Judge becomes inclined to grant enhancement to the appellant over and above what is presently awarded, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest during the period from

¶32

LAA 132/2011 4

¶33

15/7/2008 to 10/1/2011. While the decree is drafted, the decree section of the Reference Court should take note of this. The parties will enter appearance before the Reference Court on the date the court reopens after midsummer recess and revised award will be passed within four months thereafter . If the decree is passed awarding enhanced compensation to the appellant, the learned Subordinate Judge should ensure that the court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is recovered as a first charge on the compensation amount.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶36

ks.

¶37

Sd/A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶38

True copy

¶39

P.s.to Judge

¶40

LAA 132/2011 5

Girija Kumari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girija Kumari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs S.Prakasan

Martin Paul Vs State of Kerala

Pothandy Nanu Vs State of Kerala

The National Thermal Power Corpn.Ltd Vs Oommen Abraham

State of Kerala Vs Bini

Assain Vs Valthodika Faizal Babu