IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1591 of 2008()
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.C.POKKU, S/O KUNHIKUTTAILI
... Respondent
2. GOVT. OF KERALA, REP. BY
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.No.1591 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 17th November, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the
Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thalassery in LAR No.58/05. The
requisitioning authority is the appellant. The acquisition was for
widening of the road to the Industrial Growth Centre, Valiyavelicham
belonging to the appellant-KSIDC. The Land Acquisition Officer
granted land value at the rate of Rs.3899/- per cent which was
enhanced by the reference court to Rs.15,000/- per cent. I had
occasion to deal with a large number of other cases relating to
acquisition for the very same purpose. I find that in most of the
cases the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at the rate
of Rs.3899/- per cent and the reference court had refixed the land
value to Rs.10,000/- per cent. Under my common judgment in LAA
No.1452/08 series, I interfered with such refixation and would refix
the land value to Rs.9000/- per cent. In the instant case, the
reference court fixed the land value at Rs.15,000/- per cent despite
the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the land value at
Rs.3899/- per cent only. I notice from the judgment that the court
below relied on Ext.X1 Commissioner’s report which was to the effect
LAA No.1591/08 – 2 –
that the acquired property was situated just 1 K.M. from the
Kuthuparamba Municipal Bus Stand. I further notice that relying on
Ext.X1 itself, the court below found that the acquired property was
having commercial potentiality in as much as a Maruti Workshop was
already functioning on the reminder portion of the property. Thus, I
feel that there is justification for granting more amounts than the
amounts awarded by this court under my common judgment in LAA
No.1452/08 series. However, I am not inclined to decide the issue
finally. I am of the view that the issue should be reconsidered by the
court below. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned judgment and
decree and remand the L.A.R.case back to the reference court. That
court will permit both sides to adduce further evidence and pass
revised judgment on the basis of the further evidence to be adduced
and the entire evidence which comes on record. Further trial will be
completed and revised judgment as directed above will be passed by
the reference court at the earliest and at any rate within four months
of receiving a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed to the
above extent. Refund the full court fee paid on the appeal memo to
the counsel for the appellant.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
LAA No.1591/08 - 3 -