Managing Director vs Paramban Vasu on 22 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 138 of 2009()


1. MANAGING DIRECTOR , KSIDC,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PARAMBAN VASU, AASARIPARAMBA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :22/09/2009

 O R D E R
               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
             K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
    ------------------------------------------------
             L. A. A. No.138 of 2009
    ------------------------------------------------
    Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009

                     JUDGMENT

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

This is an appeal by the Requisitioning Authority

and the acquisition was of the property in

Kuthuparamba Village for the purpose of widening the

road leading to the requisitioning authority’s Industrial

Growth Centre at Valiavelicham. The Land Acquisition

Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2147/-

per cent which was enhanced under the impugned

judgment to Rs.10,000/- per cent. Though the

claimant/respondent has been served with notice, he

has not entered appearance before this Court. Our

attention is drawn by Sri.Joby Cyriac, the counsel for

L. A. A. No.138 of 2009 -2-

the appellant to judgment of this Court in K.S.I.D.C v.

Vayalambron Krishnan (2008(4) KLT 726) and the

other judgments following the above judgment. We

are of the view that for reasons stated in the judgment

in K.S.I.D.C v. Vayalambron Krishnan (cited supra)

the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and

remand L.A.R.364/05 to the Subordinate Judge’s

Court, Thalassery. The appellant is directed to place a

copy of the judgment in K.S.I.D.C v. Vayalambron

Krishnan (cited supra) also before the Sub Court. The

Sub Court will give opportunity to all parties to adduce

further evidence, if they want to, and will pass the

revised judgment on the basis of the entirety of the

evidence which comes on record. Refund full court fee

L. A. A. No.138 of 2009 -3-

paid on the appeal memo to the appellant.

This appeal is thus, allowed, by way of remand.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
kns/-