{"id":207308,"date":"2009-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-02-10T10:52:08","modified_gmt":"2018-02-10T05:22:08","slug":"saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nLA.App..No. 107 of 2007(B)\n\n\n1. SAINA BEEVI, D\/O.SAFEDA BEEVI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.KOSHY\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :17\/09\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n    PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n   ------------------------------------------------------------\n   LAA. Nos. 107, 209, 876, 305, 510, 1073, 1341, 1363,\n 1364, 1386 & 1387 of 2007, 1741, 1742, 1750 & 1751 of\n              2008, & 539, 620 & 644 of 2009\n -----------------------------------------------------------------\n         Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
     All these appeals are preferred by claimants who are<\/p>\n
dissatisfied by the re-determination of compensation for<\/p>\n
their lands under acquisition by the Subordinate Judge’s<\/p>\n
Court,     Pathanamthitta.      The     properties     were      in<\/p>\n
Enadimangalam Village of Adoor Taluk. The purpose of the<\/p>\n
acquisition was establishment of a Food Processing Park for<\/p>\n
KINFRA, the 2nd respondent.          The relevant Section 4(1)<\/p>\n
notification was published on 19-12-2003.              The Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition Officer categorized the lands under acquisition<\/p>\n
into four. Included in category No.1 where important lands<\/p>\n
having direct frontage of Panchayat Road,               for these<\/p>\n
properties the L.A.Officer awarded land value at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.4600\/- per Are. Included in category 2 where properties<\/p>\n
LAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.
\n                               -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
enjoying direct frontage of estate road, for these properties<\/p>\n
the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,400\/-<\/p>\n
per Are.        Included in category No. 3 where properties<\/p>\n
having access through G-plots only, for these properties the<\/p>\n
L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4200\/- per<\/p>\n
Are.   Included in the 4th category where lands without any<\/p>\n
road frontage and for these properties the L.A. Officer<\/p>\n
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4000\/- per Are. The<\/p>\n
learned Subordinate Judge under the various judgments<\/p>\n
which are impugned in these appeals re-fixed the value of<\/p>\n
lands included in category- 1 at Rs.10,000\/- per Are<\/p>\n
evaluating the evidence which was adduced by the parties.<\/p>\n
Similarly the value of lands included in category Nos. 2,3<\/p>\n
and 4 were respectively re-fixed at Rs.8000\/- per Are,<\/p>\n
Rs.7000\/- per Are and Rs.6000\/- per Are. According to the<\/p>\n
appellants the enhancement granted is grossly inadequate.<\/p>\n
Many of the appellants have raised a grievance that the<\/p>\n
LAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.
\n                                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
courts below did not award any enhancement towards the<\/p>\n
value of the improvements which existed           upon the<\/p>\n
properties under acquisition.       The improvements were<\/p>\n
mostly rubber trees. The appellants point out that in LAA.<\/p>\n
Nos. 1073\/07, 644\/09 and 620\/09 corresponding to LAR.<\/p>\n
Nos. 13\/04, 64\/05 & 66\/05, considerable enhancement was<\/p>\n
granted      by     the reference  court towards  value  of<\/p>\n
improvements. According to the appellants, the court below<\/p>\n
having granted enhancement in those cases towards value<\/p>\n
of improvements was not at all justified in disallowing any<\/p>\n
enhancement towards value of improvements in the other<\/p>\n
cases.\n<\/p>\n
     2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.T.K.Koshy,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.G.S.Reghunath,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the requisitioning authority and the<\/p>\n
learned senior Govt. Pleader Mr. P.K.Babu.<\/p>\n
     3. Mr.Koshy would argue that the court below has<\/p>\n
LAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.
\n                                -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
excluded relevant evidence adduced by the claimants from<\/p>\n
consideration while fixing market value of the lands under<\/p>\n
acquisition.        According to him, under Ext.A6 common<\/p>\n
judgment the very same court had re-fixed land value at<\/p>\n
Rs.16,426\/- per Are. According to him, the lands involved in<\/p>\n
Ext.A6 and the lands under acquisition in these cases were<\/p>\n
similarly situated and had several potentialities and<\/p>\n
improvements. He would further argue that grave injustice<\/p>\n
has been caused to the appellants in that they were not<\/p>\n
awarded any enhancement towards value of improvements.<\/p>\n
Attention was drawn by him to those judgments where the<\/p>\n
court below had awarded considerable increase towards<\/p>\n
value of improvements.          Sri.G.S.Reghunath per contra<\/p>\n
would oppose all the submissions of Mr.Koshy. According to<\/p>\n
him Ext.A6 judgment could not have been a basis since that<\/p>\n
was in respect of acquisition pursuant to a different<\/p>\n
notification.       He would also submit that the properties<\/p>\n
LAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.
\n                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
covered by Ext.A6 were superior in the sense that even in<\/p>\n
1996 a much higher value than what is awarded by the L.A.<\/p>\n
Officer in 2003 to the properties under acquisition in these<\/p>\n
cases had been awarded. According to Mr.Reghunath, there<\/p>\n
is no warrant for granting any further enhancement to the<\/p>\n
claimants. Meeting the argument that the court below had<\/p>\n
adopted different standards in the matter of awarding<\/p>\n
enhancement towards value of improvements Mr.Reghunath<\/p>\n
submitted that the additional value of improvements has<\/p>\n
been awarded only in cases where there was evidence in the<\/p>\n
form of acceptable commission reports. The claimants in<\/p>\n
those cases where there is no acceptable commission report<\/p>\n
cannot aspire for award of more value towards value of<\/p>\n
improvements.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Mr.Reghunath also referred to LAA. Nos. 510\/07,<\/p>\n
1073\/07, 1742\/08 and 1341\/07. He pointed out that those<\/p>\n
were all cases involving more than 1 hectare of land. Citing<\/p>\n
LAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.
\n                             -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
the judgments of the Supreme Court in Haryana State<\/p>\n
Electricity Board and another v. Maha Singh and another<\/p>\n
(AIR 1997 SC 2553), Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi v.<\/p>\n
Mrudula Jyothi Rao and others (AIR<\/a> 2007 SC 614) and<\/p>\n
Gajjan Singh and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC<\/p>\n
2417) Mr. Reghunath submitted that the acquisition in the<\/p>\n
above appeals will have to be treated as whole sale<\/p>\n
acquisition and therefore the market value which is being<\/p>\n
awarded in other case involving small extent – retail<\/p>\n
acquisition cannot be awarded. According to him in whole<\/p>\n
sale acquisition at least 20% of the total price determined<\/p>\n
by this court towards market value of land should be<\/p>\n
deducted. The learned senior Govt. Pleader would support<\/p>\n
all the submissions of Mr.Reghunath. According to him,<\/p>\n
there is no warrant at all for interference in the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     5.      We have very anxiously considered the rival<\/p>\n
LAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.
\n                                -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
submissions addressed at the Bar. We are unable to accept<\/p>\n
the argument of Mr.Koshy that Ext.A6 judgment ought to<\/p>\n
have been followed and the enhancement of the market<\/p>\n
value granted under Ext.A6 should have been fixed for the<\/p>\n
properties under acquisition included in category- 1. A6 was<\/p>\n
not an acquisition pursuant to the very same notification or<\/p>\n
for the same purposes. It has come out in evidence that A6<\/p>\n
property unlike the properties under acquisition were<\/p>\n
situated within Adoor Municipality and that A6 properties<\/p>\n
were enjoying the direct frontage of Kodumon – Parakode<\/p>\n
PWD Road.          It is apparent that A6 properties were far<\/p>\n
superior to the properties under acquisition since even in<\/p>\n
1988 when A6 properties were acquired for the purpose of<\/p>\n
Water Authority the acquisition officer had awarded much<\/p>\n
higher value to those properties than the value awarded to<\/p>\n
properties in category-1 in these cases. According to us, the<\/p>\n
learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in not<\/p>\n
LAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.
\n                                 -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
placing reliance on Ext.A1.\n<\/p>\n
     6. If Ext.A6 is eschewed, then the tangible evidence<\/p>\n
available before the learned Subordinate Judge for fixing<\/p>\n
market value of the properties under acquisition was the<\/p>\n
basis document, oral evidence of the claimants and the<\/p>\n
reports of the Commissioner available in some of the cases<\/p>\n
which were to the effect that the properties were situated in<\/p>\n
a relatively important locality. To the oral evidence adduced<\/p>\n
by the claimants, counter evidence was not adduced in most<\/p>\n
of the cases.       It is evaluating the oral evidence and the<\/p>\n
evidence other than Ext.A6 that the learned Subordinate<\/p>\n
Judge fixed the market value of the lands in all these cases.<\/p>\n
     7. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence and we<\/p>\n
feel that on a better assessment based on the evidence<\/p>\n
available in these cases other than Ext.A6 the market value<\/p>\n
of the lands under acquisition can be re-fixed in the<\/p>\n
following manner:<\/p>\n
\n\nLAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.\n                              -9-<\/span>\n\n\n     Category - 1     : Rs.11,000\/- per Are\n\n     Category - 2     : Rs.8,800\/- per Are\n\n     Category - 3     : Rs.7,500\/- per Are\n\n     Category - 4 : Rs.6,400\/- per Are\n\n<\/pre>\n
Accordingly, in modification of the awards passed by the<\/p>\n
reference court we re-fix the market value of the lands<\/p>\n
which were included in category No. 1 by the L.A. Officer<\/p>\n
(lands for which the L.A. Officer awarded Rs.10,000\/- per<\/p>\n
Are) at Rs.11,000\/- per Are.     Similarly, for properties of<\/p>\n
category No.2 (for which L.A. Officer awarded Rs.8000\/-<\/p>\n
per Are) we award Rs.8,800\/- per Are. For category Nos.3<\/p>\n
and 4 (for which L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rates<\/p>\n
Rs.7000\/- and Rs.6000\/- respectively per Are) we re-fix at<\/p>\n
the rate of Rs.7,500\/- per Are and Rs.6,400\/- per Are.<\/p>\n
     8. We notice elements of genuineness in the grievance<\/p>\n
voiced by those claimants who were not awarded any<\/p>\n
enhancement by the reference court towards value of<\/p>\n
LAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.
\n                           -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
improvements. May be, it is true that in cases other than<\/p>\n
the cases covered by LAA. Nos. 1073\/07, 644\/09 and<\/p>\n
620\/09 (LAR numbers respectively 13\/04, 64\/05 and 66\/05)<\/p>\n
there was no good evidence to grant enhancement towards<\/p>\n
value of improvements. At the same time, it is not seriously<\/p>\n
in dispute that the nature of improvements in these<\/p>\n
properties were somewhat similar to the nature of<\/p>\n
improvements in the other cases. Rubber trees standing in<\/p>\n
these properties were somewhat similar and we feel that<\/p>\n
based on the evidence adduced by the claimants uniform<\/p>\n
enhancement by 30% over what was awarded by the L.A.<\/p>\n
Officer towards value of improvements in his award can be<\/p>\n
awarded in all the appeals except LAA. Nos. 1073\/07,<\/p>\n
644\/09 and 620\/09. Accordingly, all the appellants other<\/p>\n
than appellants in LAA. Nos. 1073\/07 644\/09 and 620\/09,<\/p>\n
we award 30% of the amount awarded to those appellants<\/p>\n
by the L.A. Officer towards value of improvements as<\/p>\n
LAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.
\n                              -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
additional compensation towards value of improvements.<\/p>\n
     9. As noticed already, the cases relating to LAA. Nos.<\/p>\n
510\/07, 1073\/07, 1341\/07 and 1742\/08 involve acquisition<\/p>\n
of more than 1 hectare of land. Following the principles laid<\/p>\n
down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 2553, AIR 2007<\/p>\n
SC 614 and AIR 1998 SC 2417 the acquisitions in these<\/p>\n
cases have to be treated as whole sale acquisition. It is trite<\/p>\n
that the whole sale price will be lesser than retail price.<\/p>\n
Therefore even as market value of the lands under<\/p>\n
acquisition in these appeals are re-determined on the basis<\/p>\n
of the rates re-fixed in this judgment, a uniform deduction<\/p>\n
of 10% on the total market value of land will be made in<\/p>\n
these appeals. But no such deduction need be made from<\/p>\n
the compensation awarded towards value of improvements.<\/p>\n
      All the appeals are allowed as above. It is made clear<\/p>\n
that all the appellants will be entitled for statutory benefits<\/p>\n
admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land<\/p>\n
LAA. N0. 107\/07 etc.
\n                              -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which<\/p>\n
they will become eligible by virtue of this judgment. No<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                         PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                         K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
\nksv\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM LA.App..No. 107 of 2007(B) 1. SAINA BEEVI, D\/O.SAFEDA BEEVI, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.KOSHY For Respondent : No Appearance […]<\/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-207308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSaina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009 - 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\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-10T05:22:08+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\\\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-10T05:22:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1698,\"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\\\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-10T05:22:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009 - 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\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-10T05:22:08+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\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-10T05:22:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009"},"wordCount":1698,"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\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009","name":"Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-10T05:22:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saina-beevi-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saina Beevi vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/207308","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=207308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207308\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}