IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 408 of 2009()
1. YESODAYAMMA GIRIJAMMA,THEKKECHEKKANATTU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SPECIAL
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KSIDC,
For Petitioner :SRI.H.RAMANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :26/05/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A..No.408 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.
The ground which is prominently raised by the appellant in this
appeal is that the land acquisition officer and the reference court went
wrong in treating the acquired property as property included in
category No.3 namely interior dry land without road frontage.
Sri.H.R.Ramanan, learned counsel for the appellant has very
persuasively submitted before us that the Commissioner’s report will
reveal that the distance between Cherthala-Arookutty main road and
the acquired property is only 50 meters. According him, in view of the
nearness of the appellant’s property to the main road, the property
should have been included in category No.2 and granted higher value
on that basis.
2. We are unable to accept the submission of Sri.Ramanan.
The categorisation adopted by the land acquisition officer in these
cases was approved by this court in a large number of cases pertaining
LAA.No.408/09 2
to acquisition for the same purpose and pursuant to the same
notification. Category No.3 as per the award of the officer was interior
dry land without any road frontage, while category No.2 was dry land
enjoying direct frontage of the Panchayat road. Even though the
Commissioner’s report supports the submission of Sri.Ramanan that the
acquired property was situated at a distance of 50 meters from the main
road in the locality, the fact remains that the property did not enjoy the
direct frontage of the Panchayat road or for that matter any other road.
This being the position, it is difficult to accept the argument of
Sri.Ramanan that the acquired property should have been included in
category No.2 and not in category No.3. As for the enhancement
granted for the properties treating them in category No.3, it is to be
noticed that such enhancement has been approved by this court in a
large number of other cases. The appeal will stand dismissed. No
costs.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
sv.
LAA.No.408/09 2