Gigi Paul Thaliath Vs State of Kerala

3 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, VII/511-B NEITHAL- MAVELIPURAM ROAD, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD, KERALA -682030 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.01.2019 IN IA NO. 1/2018 . R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER T.K .SHAJAHAN R2 SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA ANAND R3 SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SRI.M.P.PRAKASH

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

LA.App..No. 629 of 2013

¶18

2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

R.Narayana Pisharadi, J

¶21

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 15.01.2013 passed by the Sub Court, Ernakulam in LAR No. 55/2008.

¶22

An extent of 70.78 Ares of land, owned by one Poulose, situated in Kadamakkudy Village, was acquired for the purpose of construction of four line connectivity road from Kalamassery to Vallarpadam. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 27.09.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the land fixing the value of the land at Rs.8,658/-per Are. The reference court enhanced the compensation for land by refixing the value of the land at Rs.38,403/- per Are. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the reference court, the legal representatives of the claimant have filed this appeal.

¶23

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Government Pleader and also learned counsel for the third respondent, the requisitioning authority.

¶24

The reference court enhanced the compensation by refixing the value of the land at Rs.38,403/- per Are on the basis of the

¶25

LA.App..No. 629 of 2013

¶26

3

¶27

judgment of that court in LAR No. 189/2008. Today, we have dismissed the appeal LAA No. 534/2013 filed by the claimant in LAR No. 189/2008 for further enhancement of compensation. In LAA No.534/2013, we have taken into consideration the fact that, in a similar matter (LAA No.261/2011), relating to acquisition of land in the same village for the same purpose under the same notification, this Court had refixed the value of the land at Rs.22,000/- per Are. Therefore, there is no justification for the claim for further enhancement of compensation made by the appellants by refixing the value of the land at a higher rate. However, we take note of the fact

¶28

that the State has not filed any appeal against the judgment of the reference court in the instant case. The State has also not filed any cross-objection. In such circumstances, the compensation granted by the reference court cannot be reduced on the basis of the judgment of this Court in LAA No. 261/2010. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. No costs.

¶30

V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶31

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶32

lsn

Gigi Paul Thaliath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gigi Paul Thaliath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdulla Vs Bareera

Abdulla Vs Bareera

Bareera Vs Abdulla

State of Kerala Vs Thressia and Others

Francis Vs State of Kerala

Seena v Vs Rohini