Allowed

Kalakappara Hamza v. the District Collector

Kerala HC6 Mar 2018LA.App./278/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a land acquisition appeal, the High Court allowed the appellant's challenge against the trial court's rejection of his claim for enhanced compensation. The court remanded the matter, setting aside the decree and directing parties to adduce further evidence. Both parties were directed to appear for further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed. The decree of the trial court was set aside. The matter was remanded for both parties to adduce further evidence.

Kalakappara Hamza Vs the District Collector — 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

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

LA.App..No. 278 of 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 70/2011 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI DATED 31-10-2012

¶7

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶8

KALAKAPPARA HAMZA, S/O.SAIDALI, PONNIAKURISSI, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.SAJU.S.A

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶12

MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶14

P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676121.

¶15

R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP.S

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

cms

¶18

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶19

L.A.A.No.278 of 2014

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

A certain extent of property belonging to the appellant was acquired pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer he filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhanced compensation. The matter was referred. After the trial the court answered the reference against the appellant. This is challenged.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.

¶24

The appellant adduced only oral evidence in support of his claim that he is entitled to enhanced compensation. The learned Sub Judge rejected his prayer on the ground that no documentary evidence was adduced. The judgment appears to be correct.

¶25

Learned counsel submits that the property involved in this case and the properties involved in Land Acquisition References 61, 62 and 63 of 2011 of the court below were partitioned by the very same document and the appellant had filed an application for joint trial and that was dismissed by the trial court. He had also filed a commission application. That also was dismissed. The ground was that it was not filed in time. I think in these circumstances the request of the counsel that the matter may be remanded so that the appellant may adduce additional evidence is reasonable.

¶26

L.A.A.No.278 of 2014 2

¶27

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The decree of the trial court is set aside. The matter is remanded. Both parties may adduce further evidence. The parties are directed to appear in the trial court on 23.5.2018.

¶28

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶29

cms

Kalakappara Hamza v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalakappara Hamza v. the District Collector

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

Janaki Vs Dr.Vasantha R,Ganguli

K.K.Sunilkumar Vs M.N.Anilkumar

Shaji and Another Vs Sunil Chandran and Another

Paul Joseph Vs Jacob Mathew

Safiya Vs Special Tahsildar (La), Kasargod

P.V. Sreemathi Vs Radha P.V.