IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 496 of 2009()
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISION)
... Petitioner
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP, PWD,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
Vs
1. K.M.MUHAMMED SAFI, S/O.KAMBAR KAYINHI
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, CHEMANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :R1I.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :23/07/2009
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
--------------------------------------------------
L.A.A. No. 496 of 2009
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
2. The State challenges the common judgment dated
30.08.2008 passed by the Sub Court, Kasaragod disposing
of 10 L.A.R. Cases. The present appeal is directed against
L.A.R. No. 67 of 2007.
3. 0.0018 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.
131/4 of Chemnad village in Kasaragod Taluk along with
other parcels of land was compulsorily acquired by the
State for the purpose of K.S.T.P for the formation of
Kasaragod-Kanhangad State Highway. Notification under
Section 4(1) was published on 31.01.2005. The award was
passed on 24.06.2006, The lands were taken possession of
on 10.07.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed a
sum of Rs.15,000/- per cent. On reference at the instance of
the land owners, the court below as per the common
judgment re-fixed the land value at Rs.34,000/- per cent
L.A.A. No. 496/2009 : 2 :
relying on Exts.A1 and A2 negotiated sale deeds dated
27.01.2006 as per which certain parcels of land were
purchased by the K.S.T.P for the very same purpose. Under
Ext.A1, a sum of Rs.38,662 per cent was given. As per
Ext.A2, a sum of Rs.43,625/- per cent was given. It was
taking into account the value in Exts.A1 and A2 which were,
however, paid one year after the notification published in
this case, that the court below fixed the land value at
Rs.34,000/- per cent. In as much as in two other appeals
filed by the State as L.A.A. Nos. 352 and 354 of 2009
against L.A.R. Nos. 47 and 70 of 2007 disposed of under the
same common judgment, this Court had dismissed the
appeals, I see no reason as to why the present appeal
should be entertained. The basis for valuation has already
been approved by this Court in the aforesaid appeals. This
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
L.A.A. No. 496/2009 : 3 :
rv