{"id":134842,"date":"2010-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-12T22:53:13","modified_gmt":"2015-03-12T17:23:13","slug":"manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nLA.App..No. 340 of 2009()\n\n\n1. MANOJ, S\/O.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 39,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :16\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n      PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n      --------------------------------------------------------------\n      L.A.A. Nos.340, 382, 384, 385, 448 & 449 of 2009\n      ---------------------------------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010\n\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                          ———————-\n<\/p>\n
Pius C.Kuriakose,J.\n<\/p>\n
            The claimants are the appellants.            Their lands in<\/p>\n
Pallippuram Village were acquired by the Government at the<\/p>\n
instance of the 2nd respondent Power Grid Corporation of India for<\/p>\n
the purpose of construction of 400 KV Substation and for other<\/p>\n
ancillary purposes.     The lands involved in these appeals were<\/p>\n
included in two different categories. For the properties in<\/p>\n
LAR.No.9\/2003, corresponding to LAA.No.340\/2009, the Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12,227<\/p>\n
per Are. For properties in all other cases he awarded value at the<\/p>\n
rate of Rs.11,115\/- per Are. Before the reference court the<\/p>\n
claimants placed reliance mainly on Ext.A4 sale deed. Ext.A4 was<\/p>\n
executed on 27.5.2000, a few months prior to the promulgation of<\/p>\n
the relevant Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A4 reflected a land<\/p>\n
value of Rs.30,000\/- per cent. The contention of the respondents<\/p>\n
as regards Ext.A4 was that Ext.A4 was an artificial document<\/p>\n
brought into existence by the claimants in anticipation of the land<\/p>\n
acquisition proceedings for the purpose of staking a higher claim<\/p>\n
before the authorities.      In fact, the L.A Officer had initially<\/p>\n
LAA.340\/09 and connected cases    2<\/p>\n
recommended higher amounts to be awarded based on Ext.A4<\/p>\n
stating however that the price shown in Ext.A4 is a fancy price.<\/p>\n
District Collector did not accept the recommendation of the L.A<\/p>\n
Officer.    District Collector chose the basis document for<\/p>\n
determining market value and fixed market value as indicated<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Evidence before the learned Sub Judge apart from<\/p>\n
Ext.A4 consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, A5, A6, R1 and R2 and oral<\/p>\n
evidence of AW1 and RW1.        The learned Sub Judge did not<\/p>\n
become inclined to place reliance on Ext.A4. However, it was<\/p>\n
noticed by the learned Sub Judge that the properties under<\/p>\n
acquisition   were     enjoying the   frontage  of  Pallippuram-<\/p>\n
Andoorkonam public road, that the locality was important as the<\/p>\n
same is situated within a distance of 2 km from Techno Park and<\/p>\n
at a distance of 100 metres away from the NH-47. It was also<\/p>\n
noticed that though in the revenue records the properties are<\/p>\n
shown as wet lands, most of the properties had been reclaimed<\/p>\n
and substantial improvements have been raised on the same by<\/p>\n
the parties concerned. On the basis of those circumstances which<\/p>\n
are shown by the Sub Judge under the impugned judgment as plus<\/p>\n
points enjoyed by the properties, the learned Sub Judge came to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that the value fixed by the L.A Officer is<\/p>\n
inadequate and would re-fix the value by giving an enhancement<\/p>\n
of 20% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.<\/p>\n
LAA.340\/09 and connected cases      3<\/p>\n
Thus, for the properties relating to LAA.No.344\/2009, value was<\/p>\n
fixed at Rs.14,672\/- per Are while for the properties involved in<\/p>\n
other cases, value was fixed at Rs.13,338\/- per Are.<\/p>\n
       3.   In these appeals, the claimants have raised various<\/p>\n
grounds assailing the judgment of the learned Sub Judge.       It is<\/p>\n
argued that the court below went wrong in not relying on Ext.A4;<\/p>\n
that the L.A Officer himself having relied on Ext.A4 for making his<\/p>\n
initial recommendations did not have a case that Ext.A4 was an<\/p>\n
artificial document brought into existence with oblique motives,<\/p>\n
what the L.A Officer has stated is that price for Ext.A4 is a fancy<\/p>\n
price and nothing more; and that based on Ext.A4 the market<\/p>\n
value be re-fixed at least at Rs.10,000\/- per cent corresponding to<\/p>\n
Rs.24,700\/- per Are.\n<\/p>\n
       4.   We have heard the submissions of Sri.J.S. Ajithkumar,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.Millu<\/p>\n
Dandapani, learned standing counsel for the requisitioning<\/p>\n
authority.   We have also heard the submissions of Smt.Latha<\/p>\n
T.Thankappan,     learned     Senior Government     Pleader,   who<\/p>\n
supported    Mr.Millu      Dandapani   in   all  his   submissions.<\/p>\n
Mr.Ajithkumar drew our attention to Ext.A4 and to the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment. He submitted that there was no justifiable reason for<\/p>\n
the learned Sub Judge to have discarded Ext.A4 from the<\/p>\n
reckoning.     Ext.A4 is clearly a pre-notification document.<\/p>\n
Proposal if any submitted by the requisitioning authority to the<\/p>\n
LAA.340\/09 and connected cases     4<\/p>\n
Government is not a published document and people come to<\/p>\n
know about L.A proceedings only when official notification under<\/p>\n
Section 4(1) is issued. Ext.A4 is much earlier to the promulgation<\/p>\n
of such official notification. The L.A. Officer had in fact relied on<\/p>\n
Ext.A4 in his award to a certain extent for making initial<\/p>\n
recommendation. He had not entered a finding that Ext.A4 is an<\/p>\n
artificial document. Drawing our attention to the findings by the<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge regarding the nature of the property, its<\/p>\n
locational advantages, nearness to various institutions including<\/p>\n
Techno Park and NH-47, Mr.Ajithkumar submitted that the rate<\/p>\n
presently awarded is ridiculously low. Mr.Ajithkumar drew our<\/p>\n
attention to the judgment of the very same court in<\/p>\n
LAR.No.13\/2003 wherein relying on the very Ext.A4 another<\/p>\n
learned Judge has re-fixed the value of land, for which the Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs.11,115\/- per Are, at<\/p>\n
Rs.25,000\/- per Are. He requested that, that rate be adopted and<\/p>\n
appeal be allowed in full.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    All the submissions of Mr.Ajithkumar were resisted by<\/p>\n
Mr.Millu Dandapani, who supported the impugned judgment on<\/p>\n
the various reasons stated therein. According to him, the finding<\/p>\n
that Ext.A4 has been brought into existence with oblique motives<\/p>\n
is a finding correctly entered into by the learned Sub Judge on<\/p>\n
appreciating evidence. There is no warrant for upsetting that<\/p>\n
finding.    Once Ext.A4 is excluded from consideration what<\/p>\n
LAA.340\/09 and connected cases       5<\/p>\n
remains is only oral evidence of the parties.         Based on oral<\/p>\n
evidence, nothing more than enhancement presently granted, i.e.<\/p>\n
20%, can be legitimately granted.        According to him, all the<\/p>\n
properties were wet lands and at any rate there is no comparison<\/p>\n
between these properties and the properties covered by Ext.A4.<\/p>\n
Counsel requested that the award of the reference court be<\/p>\n
confirmed by dismissing the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    We    have     very anxiously    considered    the  rival<\/p>\n
submissions addressed at the bar. We have gone through the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment. We have also appreciated those items of<\/p>\n
evidence to which our attention was drawn by the counsel in their<\/p>\n
submissions.      7.      We do not think that the learned Sub Judge<\/p>\n
was justified in rejecting Ext.A4 completely on the reason that the<\/p>\n
same is an artificial document brought into existence by the<\/p>\n
parties for the purpose of staking a higher claim for land value in<\/p>\n
the prospective land acquisition proceedings.          It should be<\/p>\n
remembered that Ext.A4 was considered by the L.A Officer during<\/p>\n
the award enquiry and he did not become inclined to recommend<\/p>\n
for the full value reflected in Ext.A4 (Rs.75,000\/- per Are) for the<\/p>\n
reason that the price shown in Ext.A4 is a fancy price.         Just<\/p>\n
because the parties agreed to pay and receive a fancy price, it<\/p>\n
cannot be concluded that the document is an artificial one<\/p>\n
brought into existence with oblique motives. Purchasers become<\/p>\n
inclined to pay fancy price when they are keen of purchasing a<\/p>\n
LAA.340\/09 and connected cases      6<\/p>\n
particular item of property. In the instant case, even as we<\/p>\n
disagree with the learned Sub Judge in his finding that Ext.A4 is<\/p>\n
an artificial document, we agree with the L.A Officer and the<\/p>\n
District Collector in their view that it is a fancy price that is seen<\/p>\n
paid under Ext.A4.           Once Ext.A4 is excluded from the<\/p>\n
consideration, the available evidence is the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
parties and Ext.R1 & R2. Ext.R1 is the notes to award and R2 is a<\/p>\n
sketch. It is on appreciating Exts.R1 & R2 and the oral evidence<\/p>\n
of RW1 that the learned Sub Judge concluded that the property<\/p>\n
under acquisition was enjoying several plus factors narrated by<\/p>\n
him in the judgment.         It has been clearly found that these<\/p>\n
properties were enjoying direct frontage of             Pallippuram-<\/p>\n
Andoorkonam public road.         It has also been found that the<\/p>\n
distance from these properties to the NH-47 was 100 m. It was<\/p>\n
not disputed that from Techno Park campus the distance to these<\/p>\n
properties was below 2 km. It is also found that these properties<\/p>\n
were at the relevant time under the process of reclamation. We<\/p>\n
feel that based on these plus factors actually found by the learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge, he could have awarded more enhancement to the<\/p>\n
appellants.     Re-appreciating the evidence and making an<\/p>\n
assessment, which in our opinion is better than the one done by<\/p>\n
the learned Sub Judge, we re-fix value of land for which the<\/p>\n
reference court awarded value at the rate of Rs.14,672\/- per Are<\/p>\n
at Rs.17,800\/- per Are. Similarly for those lands for which the<\/p>\n
LAA.340\/09 and connected cases       7<\/p>\n
reference court awarded value at the rate of Rs.13,338\/- per Are,<\/p>\n
we re-fix at Rs.16,200\/- per Are.      In other words, the values<\/p>\n
awarded by the L.A Officer at the rate of Rs.11,227\/- per Are and<\/p>\n
Rs.11,115\/- per Are will stand re-fixed respectively at Rs.17,800\/-<\/p>\n
per Are and Rs.16,200\/- per Are.\n<\/p>\n
      Appeals are allowed as above.         The appellants will be<\/p>\n
entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A),<\/p>\n
23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the<\/p>\n
Section while drafting decree will have due regard to the<\/p>\n
condition imposed by us for condoning the delay caused in<\/p>\n
instituting the appeals. Parties are directed to suffer their costs.<\/p>\n
                              PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                              C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.<\/p>\n
\n\nokb\n\nLAA.340\/09 and connected cases         8\n\n\n\n        PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n                     ----------------------------------\n\n                       L.A.A. No.340 of 2009\n\n                    ----------------------------------\n             Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010\n\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n                           ----------------------\n\nPius C.Kuriakose,J.\n\n<\/pre>\n
            It is submitted by learned senior Government<\/p>\n
Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji that the order dt.19.3.2009 has not<\/p>\n
yet been complied with by the appellant. No representation<\/p>\n
for appellant. Appeal is dismissed for default.<\/p>\n
                               PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                               C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
okb<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM LA.App..No. 340 of 2009() 1. MANOJ, S\/O.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 39, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent 2. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, For Petitioner :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-12T17:23:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T17:23:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1644,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T17:23:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-12T17:23:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T17:23:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010"},"wordCount":1644,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010","name":"Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T17:23:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134842"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134842\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}