IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 607 of 2010()
1. K.UDAYAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :12/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.607 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The claimant is the appellant and the claim
is confined to the additional amount due under
Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The
Land Acquisition Authority as well as the
Reference Court declined the above amount on
the reason that the land acquisition proceedings
were under stay during the relevant period of 772
days. Mr.Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, the learned
counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the
judgment of this Court in Balachandran v. State of
Kerala (2010(2) KLT 270) to which one among us
L. A. A. No.607 of 2010 -2-
[PCK(J)] was a party. He also drew our attention
to another judgment of this Court in L.A.A.
No.1337/08. Mr.Thaliyal Gopakumar asserted that
the appellant was not a party to the Writ Petitions
in which this Court had stayed the land acquisition
proceedings. We accept the above submission of
Mr.Gopakumar. If the appellant was not a party to
the Writ Petitions in which stay was granted by
this Court, there was no embargo for the
Requisitioning Authority to continue with the
proceedings in the appellant’s case. Hence,
upholding the claim of the appellant in this appeal,
we allow the appeal in full. The appellant is
awarded a sum of Rs.54,053/- on account of
Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. This
amount will also carry interest under Section 28 of
L. A. A. No.607 of 2010 -3-
the Land Acquisition Act. However, while drafting
the decree the section will have due regard to the
conditions imposed by us in our order dated
16/06/10 in C.M. Application No.933/10. This
means that during the period of 950 days
condoned by that order, the appellant will not get
interest under Section 28 on the award which is
being passed.
The appeal is allowed as above, but in the
circumstances, parties are directed to suffer their
respective costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-
L. A. A. No.607 of 2010 -4-
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
————————————————
C. M. Application No.933 of 2010 in
L. A. A. No.607 of 2010
————————————————
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
Heard both sides. Delay is condoned subject
to the following conditions:-
1) The appellant will pay a sum of Rs.1,250/-
to the Government through the office of the
Advocate General within ten days from today and
produce receipt.
2) The appellant will pay an equal amount to
the High Court Legal Services Committee within
the same time limit and produce receipt.
3) In the event of the appeal being allowed
L. A. A. No.607 of 2010 -5-
and the appellant becoming eligible for enhanced
compensation, such enhanced compensation will
not carry interest otherwise admissible under
Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the
period of 950 days condoned by this order.
Annex a copy of this order to the judgment to
be passed in this appeal. Registry will send up the
appeal for admission, once receipt against
payment of the above amounts are noticed.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-