IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 293 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH DIVISION
Vs
1. M.T.VARGHESE, TC 20/1654, ORIENT HOUSE
... Respondent
2. EAPPEN THOMAS, TC 21/80, KARAMANA
3. SHERLY EAPPEN, TC.21/80
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :17/03/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.No.293 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.
We are not inclined to admit this appeal which pertains to
acquisition of land in Manacaud village pursuant to a notification under
Section 4(1) published on 31/03/1999 for the purpose of widening of
National Highway from Karamana to Killipalam. In this case, the land
acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,28,163/- per
Are. The reference court on evaluating the evidence, which consisted
mainly of Ext.A1 common judgment in six land acquisition reference
cases which were in respect of the very same acquisition and the oral
testimony of claimant as AW1 would refix the land value at the rate of
Rs. 6,17,284/- per Are. It is noticed that there was absolutely no
counter oral evidence adduced by the Government rebutting the
testimony of AW1. Learned Government Pleader would submit that
against the other cases covered by the impugned judgment, appeals
have been preferred by the Government. But it is brought to our notice
LAA.No.293/09 2
that this court has, in L.A.A.No.234/09, another case pertaining to the
very same acquisition and pursuant to the very same section 4(1)
notification wherein the land acquisition officer awarded the land value
only at Rs. 20,774/- and the reference court had granted the same rate
of enhancement as in the present case, approved such enhancement
granted by the reference court. In other words, this court has already
approved the same enhancement which is granted to a property which
according to the land acquisition officer was inferior in quality to the
acquired property in this case. In the above circumstances, the appeal
will stand dismissed in limine.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
sv.
LAA.No.293/09 2