IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 339 of 2006(D)
1. ANANTHAN PILLAI, S/O. KUMARAN,
... Petitioner
2. SATHYABHAMA, D/O. KUMARAN,
3. BHASKARAN, /O. LAKSHMI (C CLAIMANT),
4. SOBHANA SHAJI, W/O. T.C. SHAJI,
5. ANITHA GOPALAN, W/O. GOPALAN K.,
6. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN,
7. BABY PRABATH, W/O. P.G. PRABHATH,
8. MALATHY, W/O. LATE BANERJI,
9. BABURAJ, S/O. LATE BANERJI,
10. KAVITHA, D/O. LATE BANERJI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. F.A.C.T. LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.JAICE JACOB
For Respondent :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :04/12/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-----------------------------
L.A.A No. 339 of 2006
------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The claimants are in appeal, being aggrieved by what they describe
as fixation of inadequate compensation by the Land Acquisition
Reference Court. The acquisition was for the purpose of Sree Sankara
University of Sanskrit, Kalady, pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated
5.10.2003. Under the impugned judgment, the reference court granted
enhancement by 44% of the value that was awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the reference court in a few cases awarded 100% increase
and in few other cases awarded only 45% increase. The University
preferred appeal, in those cases where 100% increase was granted. The
claimants preferred appeals in cases where enhancement was 45%.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this court already
passed orders of remand in all those appeals. The above submission is
not disputed by the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority.
Accepting the above submission, we set aside the judgment and decree
under appeal and remand L.A.R No.364 of 1997 to the Sub Court, North
Paravur for a fresh decision. That court will afford an opportunity to all
the parties to adduce whatever evidence they want to. The parties will
enter appearance before the reference court on 4.1.2010. The Reference
Court will pass revised judgment within four month thereafter. After we
pronounced the judgment, the learned counsel for the University
submitted that this Court by judgment in L.A.A No. 28 of 2006 has
confirmed the impugned judgment. A copy of that judgment is also
placed before us. We are of the view that the judgment does not
foreclose the present appeal filed by the claimant. That judgment at best
only reveals that the enhancement at the rate of 44% under the impugned
judgment is not excessive. Since we notice that the appellant is to a
certain extent responsible for the order of remand, we are not inclined to
order refund of the court fee.
Sd/-
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE (JUDGE)
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE)
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
ab