State Of Krala Represented By The vs Kochukunju on 14 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 346 of 2010()


1. STATE OF KRALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KOCHUKUNJU,CHIRAMEL VEETTIL,PALLIPPAD
                       ...       Respondent

2. THRESIA KOCHUKUNJU,CHIRAMEL VEETTIL,

3. NTPC

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.A.SHAFIK

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :14/09/2010

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
                      P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
                  -------------------------------------------
                 C.M.Appln.No.618 OF 2010 &
                       L.A.A.No.346 OF 2010
                  -------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010


                              JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

This appeal is filed by the State with an application to

condone delay. While we are satisfied that the delay has been

attempted to be explained, it has to be remembered that the

appeal by the State is in relation to an acquisition made at the

instance of the second respondent which was the requisitioning

authority. The National Thermal Power Corporation is stated to

have filed an appeal, which happened to be dismissed on the

premise that the State has filed an appeal. We have, therefore,

examined the merits of the matter. There is no controversy that

Annexure A1 judgment in LAR 1/98 was relied on by the court

below. After hearing the evidence of the claimant as AW1, there

is no contra-evidence, either documentary or oral. The total

extent involved in the acquisition is 25.20 Ares of wet land in

Sy.No.325/14 of Pallippad village, for the purpose of the NTPC.

LAA.346/10

2

We find that the land value initially fixed at Rs.735/- per Are was

enhanced by Rs.6,265/-. There is no ground of appeal as the said

amount has been fixed against the enhancement reflected by

LAR 1/98. The comparable nature of the land involved in LAR

1/98 and the land in the case from which this appeal arises is not

in serious dispute. It is also submitted that the appeal against

Annexure A1 award has been dismissed. We find no ground to

hold that this appeal by the State merits admission. The appeal

fails. The C.M.Application and the appeal are, therefore,

dismissed.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

Sd/-

P.BHAVADASAN,
Judge.

kkb.15/09.