High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs C. Santhanavally on 15 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs C. Santhanavally on 15 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA App No. 768 of 2004(B)


1. STATE OF KERALA.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. C. SANTHANAVALLY, W/O. YESODHARAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.K.BEERAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR

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

 Dated :15/01/2008

 O R D E R
          KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
               ----------------------------------------------
                  L.A.A.Nos.768 and 990 2004
                  399 of 2006 & 1579 of 2007
               ----------------------------------------------
                    Dated 15th January, 2008.

                           J U D G M E N T

Kurian Joseph, J.

C.M.Appln.Nos.1549/04 in LAA 768/04, 584/06 in LAA 399/06,

1938/07 in LAA 1579/07 : Delay condoned.

The appeals are filed by the State aggrieved by the

fixation of land value by the reference court-Principal Sub Court,

Kollam. The acquisition is for the purpose of construction of

Kollam National Highway bye pass from Thattamala to Ayathil.

The properties are situated in Vadakkevila Village. We have

already considered a similar matter, leading to judgment dated

24.9.2007 in LAA 1839/02 and 307/07. In the said case, we have

taken the view that the fixation of land value at Rs.10,000/- per

cent in the first category of cases cannot be said to be excessive

or unreasonable and proportionate reduction of 5% in the second

category cases with Panchayat road also cannot be said to be

excessive or unreasonable. Having gone through the records in

these cases, we find that the fixation of market value at

Rs.10,000/- per cent is just, fair, proper and reasonable, and

LAA NO.768/04 & connected cases 2

proportionate reduction is also justified. In that view of the

matter, we do not find any merit in these appeals. They are

accordingly dismissed. The interlocutory applications for stay are

also dismissed.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH &

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ

———————————————-

L.A.A. NO.768 and 990 2004
399 of 2006 & 1579 OF 2007

———————————————-

J U D G M E N T

Dated 15th January, 2008.