The Special Tahsildar vs Meethale Kunnathu Alias Panote … on 26 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 412 of 2007()


1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, RAILWAY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER

                        Vs



1. MEETHALE KUNNATHU ALIAS PANOTE SARADA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MEETHALE KUNNATHU ALIAS PANOTE PREETHA,

3. MEETHALE KUNNATHU ALIAS PANOTE VINEETHA

4. MEETHALE KUNNATHU ALIAS PANOTE NISHA,

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :26/06/2008

 O R D E R
           KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
               ----------------------------------------------
         C.M.Application Nos.1079/07 in LAA 940/07,
        2015/07 in LAA 1655/07, 967/08 in LAA 894/08
                                   and

               L.A.A. Nos.412, 940, 1655 of 2007
                                    &
                         L.A.A.894 of 2008
               ----------------------------------------------
                      Dated 26th June, 2008.

                           J U D G M E N T

Kurian Joseph, J.

These appeals are filed by the State aggrieved by the

fixation of land value by Sub Court, Thalassery. The acquisition

is for the purpose of doubling of a railway line at Edakkad village.

The extent involved in these cases is only very small, 0.988

cents, 1.606, 3.335 and 7.41 cents. The Land Acquisition Officer

awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5,400/- per cent. The

claimants had a case for at least Rs.20,000/- per cent. On the

basis of the evidence available on record, viz. the report of the

Advocate Commissioner as well as Ext.A5 judgment in LAR

445/01, the reference court fixed the land value at Rs.12,000/-

per cent. It is seen that the respondents did not have any

evidence before the reference court. The court has made the

fixation appreciating the evidence tendered by AW1, the report of

the Advocate Commissioner and the judgment in LAR 445/01. In

LAA NO.412/07 & connected cases 2

the process it was found that the property covered by the

acquisition and the property covered by the judgment in LAR

445/01 are similar and similarly situated. Therefore, there is no

merit in the appeals. The delay petitions as well as the appeals

are dismissed. The stay petitions in the appeals are also

dismissed.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH &

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ

———————————————-
L.A.A. Nos.412, 940, 1655 of 2007
&
L.A.A.894 of 2008

———————————————-

J U D G M E N T

Dated 26th June, 2008.