Dismissed

Safiya v. Special Tahsildar (La), Kasargod

Kerala HC7 Mar 2018LA.App./134/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal regarding enhanced land acquisition compensation. The court held that the appellant failed to provide valid documentary evidence as the previously relied-upon award was set aside, rejecting the subsequent attempt to admit a delayed common judgment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and IA No.252/2017 for admission of a copy of a common judgment are dismissed.

Safiya Vs Special Tahsildar (La), Kasargod — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

LA.App..No. 134 of 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2010 IN LAR 6/2002 OF SUB COURT, KASARAGOD

¶7

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶8

SAFIYA, D/O T.A.ABDULLA, THALANGARA, KASARGOD, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/REFERRING OFFICER & RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KASARGOD - 671 121

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD - 671 121

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY (CONSTRUCTION) KANNUR.

¶14

R1-R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SYAMJI RAM R3 BY SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC, RAILWAYS R3 BY SRI.B.RAJESH, SC, RAILWAYS R3 BY SRI.C.S.DIAS, SC, RAILWAYS

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶17

L.A.A. No. 134 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2018

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The claimant in LAR No.6/2002 on the file of the Sub Judge, Kasaragod is the appellant. 0.0074 hectares of land belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of the second respondent Southern Railway pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 14.01.2000. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant requested for a reference. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the civil court. By the judgment pronounced on 21.03.2005 the trial court enhanced the market value of the property. This was challenged by the State in LAA No.1413/2007 of this Court. The trial court gave enhancement on the basis of an award passed by the court in another case, which was marked Ext.A1. Ext.A1 award was set aside by this Court by judgment in LAA Nos.308, 323 & 394

¶21

L.A.A. No. 134 of 2011

¶22

..2..

¶23

of 2009 dated 14.09.2009. In view of the setting aside of Ext.A1, this Court set aside the award passed by the trial court in this case on 21.03.2005 and remanded the case. Both parties were given liberty to adduce additional evidence. After the remand, the appellant recalled AW1 and examined him again; but, no document was marked for him. Exts.R2 & R3 were marked on the part of the respondents subject to objection. The trial court held that the appellant failed to adduce any documentary evidence to prove his claim. Accordingly, it rejected his claim for enhanced compensation. He challenges it in this appeal.

¶24

2.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

¶25

3.It was relying on an award in another case, which was marked as Ext.A1, the trial court gave enhancement to the appellant by the judgment pronounced on 21.03.2005. The State had filed appeal against Ext.A1

¶26

L.A.A. No. 134 of 2011

¶27

..3..

¶28

award. That appeal was allowed and Ext.A1 award was set aside. For this reason, in LAA No.1413/2007 this Court set aside the award passed in this case by the trial court on 21.03.2005. It remanded the case to the lower court giving liberty to both sides to adduce additional evidence. Thereafter, the appellant did not adduce any documentary evidence. It is well settled that market value of property cannot be proved by oral evidence. The only documentary evidence adduced by the appellant was Ext.A1, which was set aside. Thus, there is a total lack of evidence to prove the appellant's case. The trial court was fully justified in rejecting his claim.

¶29

4.In this appeal the appellant has produced a copy of the common judgment pronounced by the trial court in six Land Acquisition Reference cases in support of his claim that he is entitled to enhanced compensation. He has filed IA No.252/2017 to receive the document. The common judgment now produced by the appellant was

¶30

L.A.A. No. 134 of 2011

¶31

..4..

¶32

pronounced about three months after the judgment in this case was pronounced by the trial court. This judgment cannot be made part of the evidence in the case unless the appellant proves that the property is covered by it and the property acquired from him was similar and similarly situated. So, this document cannot be marked in the case. IA No.252/2017 cannot be allowed.

¶33

In the result, this appeal is dismissed. IA No.252/2017 is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶35

bka/

Safiya v. Special Tahsildar (La), Kasargod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safiya v. Special Tahsildar (La), Kasargod

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

Paul Joseph Vs Jacob Mathew

Kalakappara Hamza Vs the District Collector

Janaki Vs Dr.Vasantha R,Ganguli

P.V. Sreemathi Vs Radha P.V.

Pratap P.M Vs Sreelatha T.P

Dharmaja Vs Dinesan