High Court Kerala High Court

P. Geetha vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
P. Geetha vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 1256 of 2005()


1. P. GEETHA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARK (KERALA),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.VIJAYAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :20/08/2008

 O R D E R
           KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
             -------------------------------------------
                    L.A.A. No. 1256 OF 2005,
                   L.A.A.Nos.922, 1106, 1251,
                      1278 & 1778 OF 2007
                               AND
                       L.A.A.No.78 OF 2008
              -----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008.


                         J U D G M E N T

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

C.M.Appln.Nos.1063, 1294, 1461, 1485, 2169 of 2007 and

65 of 2008: These are applications for condonation of delay in

filing the appeals.

2. L.A.A.Nos.922, 1106, 1251 and 1278 of 2007 are filed

by the State against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub

Court, Thiruvananthapuram in L.A.R.Nos. 110, 270, 282 and 103

of 1998 respectively. L.A.A.Nos.1256/05, 1778/07 and 78/08 are

filed by the claimants in L.A.R.Nos.274, 163 and 117 of 1998

respectively aggrieved by the fixation of land value by the same

court.

3. Small extents of land situated in Kazhakuttom-

Menamkulam and Attipra villages are acquired for Electronics

Techno Park. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act was published on 05.04.1994. Properties under

L.A.A. No.1256/05 & conn. cases 2

acquisition for the use of Electronic Techno Park were classified

as Category Nos.1 to 15. Several other connected cases were

also disposed of by the reference court.

4. In L.A.R.No.274/98, Land Acquisition Officer awarded

land value at the rate of Rs.46,510/- per Are and the reference

court refixed and enhanced the same at Rs.60,463/- per Are by

granting 30% enhancement. Similarly, in L.A.R.No.110/98, Land

Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.11,812/-

and Rs.4,154/- per Are for different extents of land in different

survey numbers and the reference court refixed the same at

Rs.15,356/- and Rs.5,400/- per Are respectively by granting

enhancement at the rate of 30%.

5. In L.A.R.No.270/98, Land Acquisition Officer awarded

land value at the rate of Rs.15,750/- per Are and the reference

court refixed and enhanced the same at Rs.20,475/- per Are.

Similarly, in L.A.R.No.282/98, Land Acquisition Officer awarded

land value at the rate of Rs.11,380/- per Are and the reference

court refixed and enhanced the same at Rs.14,794/- per Are.

6. In L.A.R.No.103/98, Land Acquisition Officer awarded

land value at the rate of Rs.11,812/- per Are and the reference

L.A.A. No.1256/05 & conn. cases 3

court refixed and enhanced the same at Rs.15,355/- per Are.

Similarly, in L.A.R.No.163/1998, Land Acquisition Officer awarded

land value at the rate of Rs.12,644/- per Are and in

L.A.R.No.117/98, Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the

rate of Rs.11,812/- per Are. In both cases also, reference court

has granted 30% enhancement.

7. In L.A.A.Nos.1256/05, 1778/07 and 78/08 filed by the

claimants, the claim is for additional compensation over and

above the value fixed by the reference court. The court below,

for valid reasons, did not rely upon Exhibit A1 document to fix

market value of the property. Regarding categorization also, the

court examined the question and held that from the notes to

award it is seen that the wet converted dry lands lie behind the

property adjacent to the National Highway and therefore,

included in the 9th and 10th category. Considering the location of

the property behind National Highway, reference court rightly

held that the categorization made by the Land Acquisition Officer

is correct and can be accepted.

8. Taking into account the location of the properties near to

National Highway and its potential value, the reference court

L.A.A. No.1256/05 & conn. cases 4

rightly held that the value awarded by the Land Acquisition

Officer is not fair and according to the learned Sub Judge, the just

value for the properties is to give 30% enhancement. We have in

all the connected cases examined the question as to whether the

land value fixed by the court below is just and reasonable. We

find in those related cases also that the refixation of land value at

the rate of 30% over and above the value fixed by the Land

Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable.

In the result, the nominal enhancement at the rate of 30%

over and above the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is

just and reasonable. We find no reason to interfere with the

decree passed by the reference court. Therefore, the applications

for condonation of delay and the appeals are dismissed.

All the interlocutory applications for stay are dismissed.

KURIAN JOSEPH
JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID
JUDGE
smp

L.A.A. No.1256/05 & conn. cases 5

KURIAN JOSEPH &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

L.A.A. Nos.1256 OF 2005,
922, 1106, 1251, 1278 &
1778 OF 2007
&
L.A.A.No.78 OF 2008

J U D G M E N T

20.08.2008