Inland Waterways Authority Of … vs Jameela Beevi on 20 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 1405 of 2009()


1. INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JAMEELA BEEVI, LAILA MANZIL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :20/11/2009

 O R D E R
       PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
            L.A.A. Nos.1405, 1406 & 1432 of 2009
             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
             Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009

                             J U D G M E N T

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

These appeals are preferred by the requisitioning

authority, namely Inland Waterways Authority of India. This case

pertains to acquisition of land in Neendakara village of Kollam

district. We notice that under the impugned judgment, the

enhancement granted by the reference court is only 60% over

what was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. We notice our

own judgment in L.A..A.No.1328/2009, approving enhancement at

the same rate granted for properties in the same village acquired

for the same purpose. Under these circumstances, we do not find

any warrant for entertaining these appeals. These appeals will

stand dismissed. However, we make it clear that this judgment

approving the impugned judgment will not cause any prejudice to

the requisitioning authority in case the claimant respondents come

in appeal against the judgment of the reference court. In case any

such appeals are filed, it will be open to the appellant to resist

LAA.1405/09 & connected cases.

: 2 :

those appeals on all available grounds including the grounds

raised in these appeals. We notice that under the judgment,

which is impugned in L.A.A.No.1406/09, an amount of Rs.5,252/-

is granted by the reference court towards injurious affection of the

unacquired property. Eventhough Mr.V.Santharam argued that

such grant was not justified, having gone through the impugned

judgment, we are of the view that the remainder property of the

claimant in that case was injuriously affected at least to the extent

of Rs.5,252/-. In the result, these appeals are dismissed.

(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

aks