Partly allowed

Panoliparambil Chandradasan v. Spl.Tahsildar,N.H.I,Kozhikode

Kerala HC1 Apr 2013LA.App./1224/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court fixed the land value at Rs. 65,000/- per cent for a claimant in a land acquisition appeal, equating it with identical lands in other finalized appeals where no review petition was filed by the State.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of by re-fixing land value at Rs. 65,000/- per cent and granting consequent statutory benefits.

Panoliparambil Chandradasan Vs Spl.Tahsildar,N.H.I,Kozhikode — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013/11TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶7

LA.App..No. 1224 of 2003 ( A)

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR.174/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶9

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT IN L.A.R. NO. 174 OF 2000:

¶10

PANOLI PARAMBIL CHANDRADASAN, S/O. APPU, KOLAPPURATH THAZHAM, P.O. CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN L.A.R. NO. 174 OF 2000:

¶13

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A. N.H. NO. 1, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶16

01-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S. SIRI JAGAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶18

=====================

¶19

L.A.A. No. 1224 of 2003

¶20

=====================

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2013

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶24

This appeal is filed by the claimant in L.A.R. No.

¶25

174 of 2000 before the Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode, seeking enhancement of land value. This appeal earlier came up for hearing on 26-3-2013. On that day, we passed the followed order.

¶26

In this case what is challenged is a common judgment in L.A.R.Nos. 173/2000, 174/2000 and 175/2000. This appeal pertains to L.A.R.No.174 of 2000. Originally, in this appeal, by judgment dated 8.6.2007, the land value was re-fixed as Rs.65,000/- per cent. In all the appeals against the other two LARs also, land value was refixed as Rs,65,000 per cent. Later on, the State filed R.P. No.50 of 2010 in this appeal and this Court set aside the earlier judgment and restored this appeal for hearing. The counsel for the appellant points

¶27

L.A.A. No. 1224 of 2003

¶28

-2-

¶29

out that the State did not file review petitions in respect of the other two appeals and, therefore, it would be unjust to deny the appellant alone the land value of Rs.65,000/- per cent, when his brothers, who are the appellants in the other cases, are getting the benefit of land value at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per cent in respect of identical land. When this is pointed out, learned Government Pleader seeks time to verify.

¶30

Post next week.”

¶31

Today the learned Government Pleader admits

¶32

that no review petition was filed in the appeals against L.A.R Nos. 173 of 2000 and 175 of 2000. Therefore, the judgment of this court in the appeals against L.A.R Nos. 173 of 2000 and 175 of 2000 have become final. In those cases, the land value fixed by this court was Rs. 65,000 per cent. It is not disputed before us that the land involved in this appeal is identical to the lands involved in L.A.R. Nos. 173 of 2000 and 175 of 2000. Therefore, the very same land value has to be fixed in this case also. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of

¶33

re-fixing land value for the land involved in this case as

¶34

L.A.A. No. 1224 of 2003

¶35

-3-

¶36

Rs. 65,000/- per cent. Needless to say the appellant would be entitled to consequent statutory benefits on the basis of that land value.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/-

¶39

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶40

kvr/

¶41

/TRUE COPY/

¶42

P.S. TO JUDGE

Panoliparambil Chandradasan v. Spl.Tahsildar,N.H.I,Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panoliparambil Chandradasan v. Spl.Tahsildar,N.H.I,Kozhikode

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 Mankuzhiyil Iyyattu

Joju @ Joji Vs Sreekumar P.B.

State of Kerala,Rep.by Dt.Collector,Tvm. Vs Aneesh Kumar and Another

Moidunni Vs the Special Tahsildar

Anup Unnikrishnan Vs Biju Kumar

Mujeeb Rahman Vs C.C.Abdulla Haji and Another