Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Radhakumari

Kerala HC6 Nov 2013LA.App./690/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a land acquisition appeal. The appellant challenged the enhanced land value fixed by the Sub Court. The court found the Sub Court justifiably relied on a common judgment in similar cases due to lack of other evidence and found no merit in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the enhancement of land value by the Sub Court was upheld.

State of Kerala Vs Radhakumari — 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

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶6

LA.App..No. 690 of 2011

¶7

LAR NO.9/2006 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA DATED 31-05-2010

¶8

APPELLANT(S):RESPONDENT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. P.A.RAZIYA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):CLAIMANT:

¶12

RADHAKUMARI, D/O.RUGMINI AMMA, THOTTINKARA KUNJU VEEDU, KALLIKKADU, PERINANKADAVU, NEYYARDAM PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 512.

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA

¶14

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶17

L.A.A.No.690 of 2011

¶18

Dated this, the 6th day of November 2013

¶19

Judgment

¶20

Siri Jagan, J.

¶21

State is the appellant in this appeal. The State acquired certain properties belonging to the respondent herein as per a notification dated 4.2.2002, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs.8,642/- per are. On reference, the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, in L.A.R.No.9/06, enhanced the land value to Rs.20,000/- per are. That is challenged in this appeal.

¶22

We have heard the learned Government Pleader.

¶23

On a perusal of the judgment of the Sub Court, we

¶24

find that the only evidence regarding land value, available on record was Ext.A1 common judgment in L.A.R.Nos.1/06, 2/06, 4/06, 6/06, 8/06, 10/06, 11/06 and 12/06 of Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. Although Exts.R1 to R1(c) were marked, those documents did not weigh with the Sub Court in the matter of

¶25

LAA No.690/11

¶26

¶27

fixation of land value. Ext.A1 judgment was in respect of land acquired under the same notification for the same purpose. In the absence of any other evidence, the Sub Court had no other go, but to fix the land value based on Ext.A1 judgment. That being so, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the Sub Court in fixing the land value based on Ext.A1 judgment. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is

¶28

dismissed.

¶29

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶30

K.RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE

¶31

sta

¶32

LAA No.690/11 3

¶33

LAA No.690/11 4

State of Kerala v. Radhakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Radhakumari

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

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs the K.S.E.B and Another

Dhanesh Vs Subramanian

Bobby Francis Vs P.a.Mukundan

State of Kerala Vs Jayan

Sreevidhya Vs K.P.Jose

Thressiamma Vs Joseph Francis & Others