IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 2226 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S.SHEILA, TC 1/1507, PAZHAYA ROAD,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.R.MANOJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :23/11/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
L.A.A. No. 2226 of 2008 B
&
Cross Objection No.75 of 2009
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
This case pertains to acquisition of land in Pettah
village for the purpose of Thiruvananthapuram Airport pursuant to
4(1) notification published on 04-02-1999. The Land Acquisition
Officer included a portion of the property in Category 4 and
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.78,743/- per Are. The
balance portion was included in Category 5 and awarded the land
value at the rate of Rs.39,900/-. The reference court, on the basis
of the evidence that came on record, would refix the land value at
a uniform rate Rs.2,97,600/- per Are. It is brought to our notice by
the learned senior Government Pleader that this Court has finally
approved land value for properties which were included in
Category 2 at Rs.1,50,000/-. The argument of the government
pleader is that the present property, which is in Category 4, cannot
be awarded more than that rate.
LAA.2226/08
: 2 :
2. Resisting the above submissions, it is submitted on
behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent cross objector
that the property under acquisition is eligible to be included in
Category 1. The learned counsel submitted that the cross
objector did not get sufficient opportunity to take out a
commission. The counsel pleaded that opportunity be given.
3. The learned Government Pleader drew our attention to
our own judgment in L.A.A.No.2225/08 and Cross Objection
51/09. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in case
this Court is inclined to give an opportunity as requested by the
counsel for the cross objector, stringent conditions, as is done in
that judgment, have to be imposed.
4. Having regard to the above submissions, we are of the
view that an opportunity can be given to the cross objector for
proving that the property under acquisition is eligible to be
included in Category 1, imposing suitable conditions.
5. The result of the above discussion is that the judgment
and decree under appeal are set aside and the LAR is remanded
to the court below. The court below is directed to consider the
LAA.2226/08
: 3 :
application for issuance of commission, if any, filed by the claimant
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and appoint an Advocate Commissioner at the cost of
the claimant. The court will afford opportunity to both sides to
adduce whatever further evidence they want to and will pass
revised judgment early and at any rate within five months of
receiving a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the above
order will become operative only subject to the following
conditions.
(i) The claimant respondent pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-
(Rupees two thousand only) to the Kerala Mediation Centre within
ten days and produce receipt before the reference court.
(ii) If under the revised judgment the claimant becomes
eligible for market value exceeding Rs.1,80,000/- per Are, such
excess compensation exceeding Rs.1,80,000/- will not carry
interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act during the period from 18-12-2007 till the date of
the revised judgment to be passed by the reference court.
We are not inclined to order refund of the court fee
LAA.2226/08
: 4 :
paid on the memorandum of cross objection to the claimant since
to a considerable extent the claimant is responsible for the order
of remand.
(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
aks