State Of Kerala vs Thekkemadathil Valappil … on 28 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 311 of 2008()


1. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY THE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THEKKEMADATHIL VALAPPIL MUHAMMED ASHRAF
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :28/05/2009

 O R D E R
          PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                      ------------------------
                     L.A.A.No.311 OF 2008
                      ------------------------

              Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

In this appeal, which pertains to acquisition of land for

Kannur Power Project pursuant to a notification published on

5/9/1997, the land acquisition officer awarded Rs.4994/- per cent

for garden lands and Rs.703/- per cent for Kaipad. Under the

impugned judgment, the reference court refixed the land value

for garden lands at Rs.10,000/- per cent and the value of Kaipad

at Rs.2000/- per cent. It is brought to our notice that the

reference court in connected matters refixed land value at

different rates for properties which had been treated similarly by

the land acquisition officer for the purpose of its original award.

Our attention was drawn to the common judgment of this court in

L.A.A. No.1089/2007 series. It is seen that, noticing the

disparity in the rates fixed by the reference court for properties

which had been treated by the land acquisition officer as having

the same value, this court set aside the judgments which were

impugned in those appeals and remanded LARs back to the

L.A.A..No.311/2008 2

reference court. We feel that in this case also the issue will

have to be reconsidered by the learned Subordinate Judge.

Hence, following the view taken by another Division

Bench of this court in L.A.A. No.1089/2007, we set aside the

judgment under appeal in L.A.R.154/2002. That court will

permit both sides to adduce further evidence, if they chose and

will pass revised judgment on the basis of the entire evidence

which comes on record. Needful, as directed above, shall be

done by the reference court at the earliest and at any rate within

four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. If trial

pursuant to the remand order in L.A.A. No.1089/2007 is yet to

commence, the learned Subordinate Judge may consolidate

L.A.R. No.154/2002 with those cases and take decision jointly.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk