IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 228 of 2009()
1. THALIYAN PADINHARE VEETTIL CHERIYA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, TELECOM,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :05/03/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.No.228 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.
Sri.Mathews.K.Philip takes notice on behalf of the first
respondent – requisitioning authority and the Government Pleader
Sri.Basant Balaji takes notice on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. We
have heard the submissions of Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel for the
appellant and those of Sri.Mathews.K.Philip and the government
pleader.
2. It appears to us that the appellant has a legitimate grievance.
The appellant was the owner of a total extent of roughly 53.9 cents of
land in RS.No.110/7 of Ramanthali village. Out of the above property,
substantial portion extending to 49.4 cents was acquired at the instance
of the first respondent for the establishment of a telephone exchange
and being dis-satisfied with the value determined by the awarding
officer, the appellant initiated a reference under Section 18 to the
Subordinate Judge’s court which was registered by that court as
L.A.A.No.228/09
2
L.A.R.No.33/04. That reference was answered fixing the value of the
acquired property at Rs. 13,000/- per cent. We are informed that such
fixation by the reference court in L.A.R.No.33/04 has become final.
The reminder portion of the appellant’s property extending to 4.5 cents
was not acquired due to the reason that the same contain certain
objectionable elements like ‘Nagaprathishta’ and ‘Bhandaram’. The
appellant invoked Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act and when his
request was not granted, he approached this court and ultimately the
above remainder extent was also ordered to be acquired. Under the
impugned judgment, the reference court has fixed the market value of
the remainder extent so acquired at Rs. 8,000/- only. The prominent
submission of Sri.M.Sasindran is that there is no justification at all for
not granting atleast Rs. 13,000/- per cent which was granted to the
appellant by the reference court in L.A.R.No.33/04. We find
considerable force in the above submission of Sri.M.Sasindran.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal to the extent of refixing the market
value of the property acquired in this case at Rs. 13,000/- per cent. The
appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under
L.A.A.No.228/09
3
Section 23(2) and 23(1-A), and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act
on the enhanced compensation becoming payable to him on account of
refixation of the market value at Rs. 13,000/-.
Parties are directed to suffer their costs throughout.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
sv.
L.A.A.No.228/09
4