High Court Kerala High Court

Government Of Kerala vs Kalathil Poilan Assainar on 5 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Government Of Kerala vs Kalathil Poilan Assainar on 5 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 724 of 2009()


1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KALATHIL POILAN ASSAINAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WSP DIVISION

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA

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

 Dated :05/02/2010

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J
                      -------------------------.
                    L.A.A No.724 OF 2009
                   --------------------------------
         Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010.

                        J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Land Acquisition Court, Thalassery in L.A.R.274/05. An extent of

0.0079 hectares of land comprised in R.Sy.No.17/1 of Kolari

Village has been acquired and Land Acquisition Officer has

awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,004/-. But the reference

court fixed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent and revised the

order. The appellant was examined as AW1 in the case. The

court found that the property which is a subject matter of

acquisition has got direct access to the tar road. The relied on

document Ext.A1 was not accepted for the reason that the said

property is just adjacent adjacent to the Mattannur – Kannur

main road. The court also relied upon the Commissioner’s report

to find out that the acquired properties are at residential area

near Mattannur-Kannur road and approximately 2 kms. Away

from the main junction. The court also found that the property

covered under Ext.A2 is of a similar nature and in LAR.88/04, an

L.A.A No.724/09 2

amount of Rs.10,000/- per cent has been awarded not merely

basing on Ext.A2 but on considering proximity to the Mattanur –

town. This cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore, it

has also be stated that the property acquired is not having a

large extent as well and therefore on that ground also the award

does not call for any interference. Therefore, I find that the

appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

sou.