High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Gopinathan Nair on 14 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Gopinathan Nair on 14 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 776 of 2009(D)


1. STATE OF KERALA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GOPINATHAN NAIR,S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :14/12/2009

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                  ...........................................
                    L.A.A.No.776 OF 2009
                 .............................................
          Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009

                        J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Land Acquisition Court, Kollam in LAR.No261/1998. 00.40

Ares of land comprised in R.S.No.80/18 of Elampalloor

village was acquired, for which the land acquisition officer

fixed the land value at Rs.3,682/= per Are. The land

acquisition court, on materials enhanced the land value by

65% that is Rs.2,393/= and awarded the compensation. The

claimants relied upon Ext.A1 document dated 1.1.1986 by

which 2.02 Ares of land was sold for a consideration of

Rs.45,000/= which means Rs.22,277/= per Are. The land

acquisition court on a consideration of the materials found

that Ext.A1 property is not similar and similarly situated

and the present property is not of that quality and

especially the land in LAR.No.261/1998 did not even have a

road frontage. After taking into consideration the potentiality

of the land and other criteria, the land acquisition court

enhanced the land value by 65%.

: 2 :
L.A.A.No.776 OF 2009

I do not find that it suffers from any infirmity.

Considering the fact that the land acquired is only 00.40 Ares

and enhancement is only Rs.2,393/= per Are being negligible,

I do not propose to interfere with the judgment rendered by

the land acquisition court. Therefore the appeal is dismissed,

but it is made clear that it shall not be treated as a

precedent in some other cases.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

cl

: 3 :
L.A.A.No.776 OF 2009