IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 938 of 2010(D)
1. RAJESWARIAMMA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.NAGARESH
For Respondent :SRI.JOBY CYRIAC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :23/09/2010
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ.
-------------------------------
L.A.A.NO. 938 OF 2010 &
I.A.NO.2877 OF 2010
-------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the claimant in LAR.No.213/03. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st
March, 2009 in LAR.No.213/03 on the file of the Sub Court,
Cherthala. An extent of 2.38 Ares of dry land and 0.45 Ares of wet
land owned and possessed by the claimant had been acquired for
Industrial Growth Centre, Pallippuram pursuant to Section 4(1)
notification dated 24/1/1997. The Land Acquisition Officer
awarded an amount of Rs.14,586/- per Are for dry land and
Rs.3,687/- per Are for wet land along with other statutory benefits.
2. Before the reference court the claimant contended that
the acquired property is situated in an important locality in
Pallipuram Village abutting Cherthala-Arookutty road and that the
property is having proximity to several institutions, both public and
-2-
L.A.A.No.938/2010
private. The claimant further contended that considering the
importance and potentiality of the property it would have fetched a
market value of Rs.75,000/- per Are at the time of acquisition. The
claimant produced Ext.A1 certified copy of the common judgment
in LAR.No.55/2003. The said case relates to the properties which
are similar and similarly situated and are also included in the very
same category and acquired under the very same notification for
the very same purpose. Therefore, the reference court relied on
Ext.A1 and granted enhanced land value at the rate of Rs.3,646/-
per are over and above the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer.
3. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the
learned counsel for the appellant/claimant brought to my notice the
common judgment of the same court in LAR.No.1/2005 and
connected cases. A copy of the common judgment is produced
before this Court as Annexure-A1. It is submitted that the
properties involved in Annexure-A1 is also dry lands having
-3-
L.A.A.No.938/2010
frontage of Cherthala-Arookutty road and are also included in the
lst category. It is also submitted that the properties are similar and
similarly situated. All the acquired properties in this case were
also acquired under the very same notification for the very same
purpose in Annexure-A1 case also. The Land Acquisition Officer
awarded the very same land value. The reference court granted
enhancement of Rs.15,396/- per Are for the dry land.
4. The learned counsel for he appellant submitted that he
was unable to produce Annexure-A1 judgment before the court
below and therefore the court below awarded lesser amount than
the enhancement by relying on Annexure-A1 judgment produced
before that court. According to the learned counsel, the claimant is
entitled to the same land value as awarded in Annexure-A1
judgment, since both the properties are similar and similarly
situated. I.A.No.2877/2010 filed to accept Annexure-A1common
judgment in LAR.No.1/2005 and connected cases is therefore
allowed.
-4-
L.A.A.No.938/2010
5. In the result, the judgment and decree under appeal
are set aside. The matter is remanded to the court below for fresh
consideration in accordance with law and in the light of Annexure
A1 common judgment. The parties are at liberty to adduce further
evidence if any. The reference court shall dispose of the case within
a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.
The parties shall appear before the reference court on 20/10/2010.
The appeal is disposed of as above. There will be no
order as to costs.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.