IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 258 of 2003()
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, G.H.DIVISION,
Vs
1. K.P.BHARATHAN, KERALA BHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. K.P.PRABHAKARAN, KERALA BHAVAN,
3. K.P.SOBHANA, RATNA NIVAS, KURIAL LANE,
4. K.P.TESSY, RATNA NIVAS, KURIAL LANE,
5. K.P./RATNA SINGH, RETNA NIVAS,
6. K.P.BHAGATH SINGH, RETNA NIVAS,
7. K.P.NARAYANI W/O. LATE KORUKUTTY,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :23/05/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LA.A .No.258 OF 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.
This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in
Kasaba village in Kozhikode Taluk for the purpose of strengthening the
sharp curve at Muthalakulam junction. The relevant section 4(1)
notification was published on 26-11-1993. The land acquisition officer
awarded land value at the rate of RS. 41,850/- per cent. The reference
court relying mainly on Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.159/1997 would
refix the land value at Rs. 2,00,000/- per cent.
2. In this appeal, the government impugns such refixation on
various grounds. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Basant Balaji,
learned senior Government Pleader for the appellant and those of
Smt.Shahana Karthikeyan and Sri.P.M.Joseph, learned counsel for the
claimant respondents. While the learned senior Government Pleader
would assail the impugned judgment on the various grounds raised in
the appeal, the learned counsel for the respondents would support the
LAA.No.258/2003 2
impugned judgment on the various reasons stated in the judgment and
Ext.A1 judgment relied on, according to them, is a relevant judgment.
3. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the
Bar. Our attention was drawn to the common judgment of this court in
L.A.A.No.582/2000 & 351/2002. It is seen that the above two land
acquisition appeals pertain to acquisition of land situated nearby and in
close proximity. It is seen that in L.A.A.No.351/2002 pertains to the
very same acquisition. It is also seen that the land acquisition officer
had awarded the same value as in the present case in those cases and
the reference court also refixed the land value as the same rate under
the present case. Under the common judgment, this court has set aside
the judgments which were subject matter of L.A.A.No.582/2000 and
remanded those two cases, however, making an observation that the
correct market value at the relevant time is at any rate above Rs. l lakh
per cent. It is an open remand which has been passed by this court in
L.A.A.No.582/2000 &351/2002 and in view of that remand order, we
are of the view that this impugned judgment is also liable to be set
aside and the reference case remanded to the reference court.
LAA.No.258/2003 3
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree and
remand L.A.R.No.538/1997 to the Subordinate Judge’s Court,
Kozhkide. That court will take a fresh decision in the L.A.R regarding
the correct market value of the property under acquisition giving
opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence, if they so choose.
Transmit a copy of the common judgment in L.A.A.No. 582/2000
&351/2002 also to the Subordinate Judge’s Court. The learned
Subordinate Judge will complete the enquiry and pass revised judgment
at his earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of
this judgment.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
sv.
LAA.No.258/2003 4