IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 12 of 2008()
1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KRISHNAMMAL, W/O.ARAVINDAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
For Respondent :SMT.A.K.PREETHA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
C.M.Appln.8/2008 & L.A.A. NO. 12 of 2008
----------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of June , 2008
JUDGMENT
This is an application seeking condonation of inordinate delay of
4439 days in filing the appeal. The explanation offered through the
affidavit sworn to by the Assistant Executive Engineer attached to the
office of the Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board is
that due to an inadvertent omission in the in the office of the counsel
appearing for the KSEB before the court below, the application for
certified copy of the judgment and decree, which were passed on
31.7.1995, was given only on 24.9.2007.
2. I am not at all convinced by the above explanation more so
since nobody from the office of the Government Pleader in the court
below has come forward to endorse this explanation. Moreover I find
that, on merits also, the appellant cannot have a good case. The
acquisition was in respect of 1.92 Ares of land comprised in
Peerumade Village and the property was situated just one and half
Kilometers away from the Peerumade town and was close to the
Peerumade Guest House. The relevant notification under Section 4 (1)
is dated 3.10.1988 and the awarding officer has granted the land
value at the rate of 1976/- per Are. The respondents had not adduced
C.M.Appln.8/2008 & L.A.A. NO.12/20082
any counter evidence before the court below. They had not even
bothered to produce the basic documents. On the side of the claimant
the claimant got himself examined as AW1. The court found that the
respondents’ evidence was also not sufficient to justify enhancement
of land value. Ultimately what the court did was to rely on the court’s
own judgments in other cases pertaining to the very same acquisition
i.e. covered by the very same 4 (1) notification and for the very
same purpose i.e. purpose of Azhutha Diversion Scheme and re- fixed
the land value at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per cent.
3. Having regard to the importance of the locality and the
importance of the Peermadu town, I am of the view that the
enhancement granted by the court below on the basis of the relevant
judgment cannot be said to be wrong. The enhancement, in my
opinion, is quite reasonable. For this reason also, I am not inclined to
condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay will
stand dismissed.
The Land Acquisition Appeal also will stand rejected in limine.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
dpk
C.M.Appln.8/2008 & L.A.A. NO.12/20083