High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Amina Hajumma on 26 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Amina Hajumma on 26 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 680 of 2009(D)


1. STATE OF KERALA
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                        Vs



1. AMINA HAJUMMA, KANHIROLI THAZHE KUNIYIL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MUHAMMED NASIF, KANHIROLI THAZHE KUNIYIL

3. ABU SHIRAD, KANHIROLI THAZHE KUNIYIL,

4. MEENA MISRI, KANHIROLI THAZHE KUNIYIL,

5. SMITHA AHAMMED,

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :26/06/2009

 O R D E R
     PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
          -----------------------------------------------
                     LAA. No. 680 of 2009
          -----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008

                        J U D G M E N T

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

Even though Mr.Basant Balaji, learned senior Govt.

Pleader has addressed us very strongly, we are not

persuaded to admit this appeal. The case pertains to

acquisition of land in Atholi Village for the purpose of

construction of bridge and approach road at Kuniyil Kadavu.

The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 27-

2-2004. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at

the rate of Rs.5,795/- per cent. The reference court under

the impugned judgment re-fixed the same at Rs.16,000/-.

The parties placed reliance on Ext.A2 and the report and the

recommendation of the Advocate Commissioner who

inspected the acquired property as well as the property

covered under Ext.A2 that both the properties are

comparable and that based on Ext.A2 a sum of Rs.28,000/-

LAA. N0. 680/09
-2-

which is the value revealed in Ext.A2 can be granted. The

learned Subordinate Judge rejected the commissioner’s

report on the reason that the Commissioner has not stated

in his report as to whether A2 property was having nearness

to any public or private institutions. According to us, there

cannot be any challenge against the re-fixation of market

value at the instance of the Government. The appeal will

stand dismissed. No costs.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

(P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE)
ksv/-