IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 361 of 2010()
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.J.OOMMEN, PULIMOTTIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :06/08/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
C. M. Application No.634 of 2010 &
L. A. A. No.361 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
C. M. Application No.634/2010
Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the
respondent seeks time to file counter affidavit to the
application for condonation of delay. We are not inclined
to grant time. After all it is the Government that is filing
application for condonation of delay and apparently
convincing explanation is offered through the affidavit. We
condone the delay keeping in mind the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) and
Shankarrao v. Chandrasenkunwar (AIR 1987 SC 1726).
L.A.A. No.361/10
This appeal by the Government pertains to
L. A. A. No.361 of 2010 -2-
acquisition of land in Chennithala village pursuant to
Section 4(1) notification published on 26/02/98. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of
Rs.28,736/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the
claimant produced Ext.A2 which was a post notification
document. The court below did not rely on Ext.A2.
Ultimately what the court below did was to take into
account the importance of the locality and lie and nature
of the property and enhance the market value by 70%
and re-fix the market value at Rs.50,288/- per Are.
2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we
feel that the market value re-fixed by the Reference Court
is more or less equal to the market value of the property
at the relevant time. But we find that it was a large extent
which was involved in the acquisition. We, rely on the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Atma Singh
(dead) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana & ors.
(2008(2) SCC 568) and make a cut of 5% in view of the
largeness of the extent. This means that the market value
L. A. A. No.361 of 2010 -3-
of the land under acquisition will stand re-fixed at
Rs.47,800/- per Are. In all other respects the impugned
judgment will stand confirmed.
3. The appeal is allowed as above. Parties are
directed to suffer their respective costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-