IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA App No. 812 of 2006()
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHANDRAMATHY JAYASREE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :19/12/2006
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
...................................................................................
L.A.A. No. 812 OF 2006
...................................................................................
Dated this the 19th December, 2006
J U D G M E N T
An extent of 4 Ares of land in Sy. No. 720/4 of Kadakampalli village
was acquired for the purpose of doubling of railway line between Kollam-
Thiruvananthapuram. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act was issued on 16.03.1993. Award was passed on
05.01.1996. Land value was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the
rate of Rs. 29,001/- per Are. Possession of the land was taken on
09.01.1996.
2. The reference court relied on the judgment in L.A.R.No.392 of
1996, which was in respect of similarly situated land, acquired under the
very same notification, and held that the claimant is entitled to get same
land value as awarded in L.A.R.No. 392 of 1996. The land value fixed for
the land per Are in L.A.R.No. 392 of 1996 was Rs. 37,461/- . Accordingly,
enhancement was granted, calculated at the rate of Rs.37,461/- per Are.
L.A.A. No. 812 OF 2006
2
3. Government Pleader was directed to verify whether any appeal
was filed against the award and judgment in L.A.R.No. 392 of 1996.
Learned Government Pleader, on verification, stated that no such appeal
was filed.
4. In the light of the judgment in L.A.R.No. 392 of 1996, Land
Acquisition Court was justified in awarding enhanced compensation at the
rate of Rs.37,461/- per Are. It is not disputed that the land acquired and
the land involved in L.A.R.No. 392 of 1996 are similarly situated. It is
admitted that the lands involved in both cases were acquired as per the
same Notification.
No grounds are made out for interference in appeal. Accordingly,
Land Acquisition Appeal is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk