High Court Kerala High Court

Somasekhara Menon vs Kerala State. Represented By The on 18 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Somasekhara Menon vs Kerala State. Represented By The on 18 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 1516 of 2007(D)


1. SOMASEKHARA MENON, AGED 48 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE. REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. COCHIN REFINERIES LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.JAYACHANDRAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :18/06/2009

 O R D E R
               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
               P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
           ------------------------------------------------
                  L. A. A. No.299 of 2002 &
                  L. A. A. No.1516 of 2007
           ------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009

                          JUDGMENT

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

It appears to us that the appellants/claimants in

these appeals have a genuine grievance. Their

property was acquired by the Cochin Refineries Ltd. for

the purpose of safety zone. They relied on Ext.A1

common judgment for getting enhancement under

which the compensation for one land had been

enhanced to Rs.1480/- per Are to Rs.2520/- per Are.

The Reference Court did not rely on Ext.A1 on the

basis of a stay order passed by this Court in

LAA.36/2000. It is seen that the said stay order was

vacated and Ext.A1 was confirmed by this Court. In

L. A. A. No.299 of 2002 &
L. A. A. No.1516 of 2007 -2-

many cases, we have approved re-fixation of land

value of similar properties at Rs.2520/-. In the above

circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants

also should be given opportunity to produce relevant

judgment of this Court which will show that

enhancement at the rate of Rs.2520/- per Are has

been approved by this Court. Accordingly, we set aside

the orders under appeal and remand L.A.R.40/95 and

L.A.R.39/95 to the III Additional Sub Court,

Ernakulam. That court will give opportunity to the

appellants/claimants to produce all documents and

take a fresh decision. If the Cochin Refineries wants to

adduce counter evidence, opportunity will be given to

them also to adduce counter evidence. These appeals

are allowed by way of remand. Refund the full court

L. A. A. No.299 of 2002 &
L. A. A. No.1516 of 2007 -3-

fee paid to the counsel for the appellants.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

P. Q. BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
kns/-