High Court Kerala High Court

The Managing Director vs Smt.Nafeesa on 19 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
The Managing Director vs Smt.Nafeesa on 19 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 526 of 2006()


1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SMT.NAFEESA, D/O.AMMAD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :19/11/2009

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   L.A.A. NO. 526 OF 2006
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
        Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009.

                        J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Land Acquisition Court, Koyilandy in LAR 66/03. An area of

0.0094 hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.76/7 of Kinalur

village was acquired for the purpose of widening and

strengthening the road from Vattoli junction to Kinalur. The

Land Acquisition officer fixed the value of the property at

Rs.3,034/- per cent and the Land Acquisition Court enhanced

it to Rs.6,000/-. It is against that decision the requisitioning

authority has come up in appeal.

2. A similar award passed by the Land Acquisition

Court in LAR 19/03 was the subject matter of appeal before

this Court as LAA 519/05 and the learned Judge of this Court

after elaborately considering the matter held that there is no

ground to interfere with the fixation of value by the Land

Acquisition Court. It is also seen from the award that all the

L.A.A. 526 OF 2006
-2-

properties covered by the references are lying adjacently

belonging to various claimants and that all the properties have

same sort of importance referred to. There was some dispute

regarding the road frontage. It was also taken note of by the

Land Acquisition Court as well as this Court in appeal and a

decision was arrived at holding that an amount of Rs.6,000/-

fixed is only reasonable and therefore it has to be held that

applying the same yardstick and principles to the present case

as well the Land Acquisition Court has only arrived at a correct

decision and therefore the appeal does not merit consideration

and therefore the same is dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-