Inland Waterways Authority Of … vs Raphel on 4 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 1063 of 2005()


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

                        Vs



1. RAPHEL, S/O.PETHRU,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

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

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.P.ABRAHAM (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :04/03/2010

 O R D E R
          PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
                      ------------------------
                    L.A.A.No. 1063 OF 2005
                      ------------------------

              Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

This appeal by the requisitioning authority pertains to

acquisition of land included in category-A situated in Maradu

village for the purpose of widening of National Waterway No.III

at the instance of the appellant M/s. Inland Waterways Authority

of India. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1)

notification published on 5/3/1998. The Land Acquisition Officer

categorised the properties acquired for that purpose into as

many as five categories viz. A,B,C,D & E. The Land Acquisition

Officer included the properties having direct frontage of NH 17 in

category A. For those properties, the Land Acquisition Officer

awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,0216/- per Are. The

court below did not place any reliance on any of the documents

produced by the claimant to support his claim for enhancement.

Ultimately, what the court below did was to appreciate the oral

evidence adduced by the claimant and grant enhancement by

29% over the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer

LAA.No.1063/2005 2

based on the basis document.

3. Having scanned the impugned judgment and having

considered the submissions of Sri.V.Satharam, learned counsel

for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, we

are of the view that the enhancement granted by the learned Sub

Judge cannot be said to be excessive. We do not find any

warrant for interference at the instance of either the

Government or the Requisitioning Authority.

The appeal will stand dismissed, but there will be no order

as to costs.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk