{"id":227250,"date":"2010-06-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-24T20:10:30","modified_gmt":"2015-05-24T14:40:30","slug":"thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nLA.App..No. 562 of 2009()\n\n\n1. THOMAS SAMUEL,VELIYATH HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (C),\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :10\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n         PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n      ---------------------------------------------------------------------\n    L.A.A.Nos.562, 618 & 702 of 2009, 20 & 123 of 2010\n                                     And\n                    C.O.Nos.93, 98 & 85 of 2009\n      -------------------------------------------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 10th day of June, 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
            All these appeals are preferred by the claimants and<\/p>\n
they pertain to acquisition of land in Poonithura Village for the<\/p>\n
purpose of doubling the Railway line from Ernakulam to<\/p>\n
Mulanthuruthy at Ponnurunni area. LAA.Nos.618\/09, 702\/09<\/p>\n
and 562\/09 corresponding respectively to LAR.Nos.179\/07,<\/p>\n
180\/07 and 182\/07 are acquisitions pursuant to Section 4(1)<\/p>\n
notification published on 1.2.2007. In that acquisition, the<\/p>\n
Land Acquisition Officer categorised lands under acquisition<\/p>\n
under 3 categories.         Included in category 1 were properties<\/p>\n
having direct frontage of Palarivattom-Thammanam road. For<\/p>\n
these properties the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land<\/p>\n
value at the rate of Rs.3,26,563\/- per Are corresponding to<\/p>\n
Rs.1,32,158\/- per cent. Included in category 2 were properties<\/p>\n
with the frontage of Narayanan Asan road which unlike the<\/p>\n
main road from Palarivattom-Thammanam road is a narrow<\/p>\n
road. For these properties the Land Acquisition Officer made<\/p>\n
deduction of 15% from the value of properties in category 1<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases      2<\/p>\n
and awarded Rs.2,77,579\/- per Are corresponding to<\/p>\n
Rs.1,12,335\/- per cent.         Included in category 3 were<\/p>\n
properties situated on the side of railway track and for these<\/p>\n
properties what the Land Acquisition Officer did was to<\/p>\n
deduct 5% from the value of properties in category 2 and<\/p>\n
awarded land value of Rs.2,63,699\/- per Are corresponding to<\/p>\n
Rs.1,06,718\/- per cent. The reference court consolidated<\/p>\n
these three LA reference cases and another LAR.183\/07 in<\/p>\n
which the lands were included in category 2 and jointly tried<\/p>\n
these 4 cases. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
parties the reference court re-fixed the value of the<\/p>\n
properties included in category 2 at Rs.5,82,611\/- per Are<\/p>\n
corresponding to Rs.2,35,779\/- per cent. Similarly the value<\/p>\n
of properties included in category 1 was re-fixed by the court<\/p>\n
at Rs.6,85,425\/- per Are corresponding to Rs.2,77,388\/- per<\/p>\n
cent. The reference court maintained the same ratio that<\/p>\n
was maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between the<\/p>\n
values of properties and accordingly the learned Subordinate<\/p>\n
Judge would re-fix the value of properties in category 3<\/p>\n
involved in LAR.Nos.180\/07 and 182\/07 at Rs.5,53,480\/- per<\/p>\n
Are corresponding to Rs.2,23,990\/- per cent.<\/p>\n
       2.      In LAA.Nos.618\/09, 702\/09 and 562\/09 various<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases      3<\/p>\n
grounds have been raised by the claimants alleging that the<\/p>\n
market value re-fixed by the court is inadequate. In fact<\/p>\n
against the award of the reference court in LAR.183\/07 the<\/p>\n
claimant therein had preferred LAA.719\/09 before this court.<\/p>\n
A learned Single Judge of this court considered that LAA,<\/p>\n
allowed the same in part and re-fixed the value of the<\/p>\n
properties involved in that case at Rs.6,25,665\/- per Are<\/p>\n
corresponding to Rs.2,53,206\/- per cent.<\/p>\n
       3.      LAA.Nos.20\/2010 and 123\/2010 corresponding<\/p>\n
respectively to LAR.235\/08 and 236\/08 are in respect of<\/p>\n
acquisition        pursuant    to a  subsequent    notification<\/p>\n
dt.5.12.2007. Category 1 in the acquisition pursuant to this<\/p>\n
subsequent notification corresponds to category 2 in the<\/p>\n
earlier notification dt.1.2.2007. But category 3 in the above<\/p>\n
subsequent notification corresponds to category 3 in the<\/p>\n
earlier notification. In the cases pursuant to the subsequent<\/p>\n
notification the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value<\/p>\n
at the rate of Rs.1,38,165\/- per cent for properties included<\/p>\n
in category 1 and Rs.2,76,540\/- per Are corresponding to<\/p>\n
Rs.1,11,914\/- per cent for properties included in category 3.<\/p>\n
The reference court under the judgments which are<\/p>\n
impugned in LAA.Nos.20\/2010 and 123\/2010 has re-fixed the<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases         4<\/p>\n
value of the properties included in category 1 at<\/p>\n
Rs.6,29,220\/- per Are corresponding to Rs.2,54,642\/- per<\/p>\n
cent. Similarly reference court re-fixed value of properties<\/p>\n
included in category 3 in the subsequent notification at<\/p>\n
Rs.5,97,758\/- per Are, corresponding to Rs.2,41,909\/- per<\/p>\n
cent.\n<\/p>\n
       4.      In these cases also the appellants\/claimants have<\/p>\n
raised grounds alleging that the compensation re-determined<\/p>\n
by the court is inadequate. Memoranda of cross-objections<\/p>\n
are preferred by the Railway the requisitioning authority in<\/p>\n
LAA.Nos.618\/09, 702\/09 and 562\/09. The grounds uniformly<\/p>\n
raised in these memoranda are that market value re-<\/p>\n
determined is excessive. Particular grounds are raised as<\/p>\n
regards LAA.No.618\/09 regarding the award of Rs.1 lakh as<\/p>\n
compensation for injurious affection. It is pertinent to note<\/p>\n
that in LAA.Nos.618\/09, 702\/09 and 562\/09 the appellants<\/p>\n
have raised grounds that the court below erred in not<\/p>\n
awarding any additional compensation towards value of<\/p>\n
buildings.             In    LAA.No.123\/2010 corresponding    to<\/p>\n
LAR.No.236\/08 it is urged that the court below was not<\/p>\n
justified in awarding only 20% towards compensation for<\/p>\n
injurious affection for the land which remains unacquired.<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases     5<\/p>\n
Extent of the land remained unacquired is only 34 Sq.mtrs.<\/p>\n
That land, it is urged, has become practically valueless and<\/p>\n
compensation for injurious affection should have been at<\/p>\n
least at 80%.\n<\/p>\n
       5.      We have heard the submissions of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the parties namely, Sri.M.A.Abdul Hakhim for<\/p>\n
appellants, Sri.M.C.Cherian for Railway and Smt.Latha T.<\/p>\n
Thankappan, Senior Government Pleader for the State. The<\/p>\n
submissions of Mr.Hakhim were based on the various<\/p>\n
grounds raised in the appeal and he argued that<\/p>\n
enhancement granted by reference court            is grossly<\/p>\n
inadequate. Particular reliance was placed by Mr.Hakhim on<\/p>\n
the judgment of this court in LAA.No.719\/2009.             He<\/p>\n
submitted that at any rate proportionate enhancements<\/p>\n
based on that judgment will have to be granted towards land<\/p>\n
value in all these cases.       As regards claim for injurious<\/p>\n
affection in LAA.123\/2010 Mr.Hakhim submitted that the<\/p>\n
appellant is ready to surrender the unacquired portion<\/p>\n
extending to 34 Sq.mtrs. unless this court is not inclined to<\/p>\n
award at least 80% towards compensation for injurious<\/p>\n
affection. Learned counsel would assail the decision of the<\/p>\n
reference court in not awarding any additional compensation<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases       6<\/p>\n
towards value of land under acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
       6.      Mr.M.A. Abdul Hakhim would argue that the Cross<\/p>\n
Objections prepared by the requisitioning authority in<\/p>\n
LAA.No.702\/2009 and 562\/2009 cannot be entertained since<\/p>\n
this court has already dismissed LAA.No.173\/2001, an appeal<\/p>\n
preferred by the Government, on merits. The judgment in<\/p>\n
LAA.No.173\/2001 will operate as res judicata even as against<\/p>\n
the requisitioning authority. In support of this argument,<\/p>\n
Mr.Hakhim placed strong reliance on the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Hoshnak Singh v. Union of India and<\/p>\n
Others (AIR<\/a> 1979 Supreme Court 1328).              The learned<\/p>\n
counsel would highlight before us the observations of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment and<\/p>\n
argue that even when the earlier appeal is dismissed in<\/p>\n
limine without notice to the respondent in the appeal, then<\/p>\n
also if the dismissal is after considering the merits of the<\/p>\n
appeal, the judgment in the appeal will operate as res<\/p>\n
judicata.\n<\/p>\n
       7.      We are unable to accept the above arguments of<\/p>\n
Mr.Hakhim.          True, the dismissal of LAA.No.173\/2001 was<\/p>\n
after considering the merits of the appeal. But, we find that<\/p>\n
it was without notice to the requisitioning authority that the<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases     7<\/p>\n
above appeal was dismissed. The question is whether the<\/p>\n
present Cross Objections filed by the requisitioning authority<\/p>\n
are maintainable in law. It has to be held that, in view of<\/p>\n
Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, cross objections are maintainable.<\/p>\n
The Cross Objectors have got a right to have cross objections<\/p>\n
considered on merits and it will not be just at all to accept<\/p>\n
the contention that the above cross objections duly<\/p>\n
entertained by this court will have to be rejected as not<\/p>\n
maintainable on the strength of an earlier judgment<\/p>\n
regarding which the cross objectors did not serve notice.<\/p>\n
       8.      Sri.M.C.Cherian, learned standing counsel for<\/p>\n
Railway would oppose the submissions of Mr. Hakhim on<\/p>\n
merits very stiffly. Apart from challenging land value re-<\/p>\n
determined by the court as excessive, Mr.Cherian would<\/p>\n
submit particularly that at any rate the compensation for<\/p>\n
injurious affection awarded in LAA.No.618\/09 is without any<\/p>\n
basis. Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned Senior Government<\/p>\n
Pleader drew our attention to the judgment of this court in<\/p>\n
LAA.No.173\/2010 and submitted that by judgment in that<\/p>\n
appeal, which was preferred by the Government, this court<\/p>\n
has indirectly approved the value of Rs.5,53,480\/- per Are<\/p>\n
fixed for properties in category 3.\n<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases    8<\/p>\n
       9.      We have very anxiously considered the rival<\/p>\n
submissions addressed at the bar.          We have made a<\/p>\n
reappraisal of the entire evidence. We have gone through<\/p>\n
the impugned judgments. We have also noticed the judgment<\/p>\n
of the learned Single Judge of this court in LAA.719\/09 which<\/p>\n
we see is in respect of acquisition of properties included in<\/p>\n
category 2 by the Land Acquisition Officer in the acquisition<\/p>\n
pursuant to the notification dt.1.2.2007. It is not disputed<\/p>\n
that the above judgment has become final.          Having gone<\/p>\n
through that judgment we feel that the market value<\/p>\n
determined by the learned Single Judge for properties<\/p>\n
included in category 2 which comes to Rs.6,25,665\/- per Are<\/p>\n
is more or less the correct market value of the property at<\/p>\n
the relevant time. We are therefore proceeding on the basis<\/p>\n
that the proper value to be awarded for properties included<\/p>\n
in category 2 and acquired pursuant to notification<\/p>\n
dt.1.2.2007 is Rs.6,25,665\/- per Are.\n<\/p>\n
       10. We shall immediately state that while we are able<\/p>\n
to approve the action of the Land Acquisition Officer in<\/p>\n
having categorised the properties acquired pursuant to the<\/p>\n
notification dt.1.2.2007 into 3 categories on the parameters<\/p>\n
set out in his award. We are finding it difficult to approve the<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases    9<\/p>\n
ratio maintained by him between the values of the properties<\/p>\n
in the three categories. According to us, the proper ratio to<\/p>\n
be maintained between the value of properties in categories<\/p>\n
1, 2 and 3 is 100:80:70. We notice that under the judgments<\/p>\n
which are impugned in LAA.Nos.20\/2010 and 123\/2010<\/p>\n
which are in respect of acquisitions 10 months after the<\/p>\n
acquisition in the other three appeals, what the court below<\/p>\n
has done is to add 8% from the value awarded by him in the<\/p>\n
three earlier cases. We do not find much infirmity in what is<\/p>\n
done by the learned Subordinate Judge. We are of the view<\/p>\n
that based on the decisions to be taken in LAA.Nos.618, 702<\/p>\n
and 562 of 2009 market value in the other two cases can be<\/p>\n
fixed giving additions at 8%.\n<\/p>\n
       11. Re-determining the market value of the lands<\/p>\n
acquired pursuant to the notification dt.1.2.2007 on the<\/p>\n
approval granted by us to the decision of the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge in respect of properties in category 2, applying the<\/p>\n
ratio found by us to be the correct ratio between the three<\/p>\n
properties, the market value of properties included in<\/p>\n
category 1 acquired pursuant to the notification dt.1.2.2007<\/p>\n
will have to be re-fixed at Rs.7,82,080\/- per Are. When the<\/p>\n
value of properties included in category 3 (corresponding to<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases        10<\/p>\n
LAA. Nos:702\/09 & 562\/09) is re-fixed on that basis, the<\/p>\n
value will have to be re-fixed at Rs.5,47,454\/-. But then, as<\/p>\n
pointed out by the learned senior Government Pleader this<\/p>\n
court by dismissing the Government’s appeal LAA.173\/2010<\/p>\n
have virtually approved the value of Rs.5,53,480\/- per Are<\/p>\n
fixed for properties in category 3.\n<\/p>\n
       12. Hence we are of the view that in LAA.Nos.702 and<\/p>\n
562 of 2009 the appellants claimants should be awarded land<\/p>\n
value at the rate of Rs.5,53,480\/- per Are itself. In LAA.<\/p>\n
No.20\/2010 land value will have to be re-fixed at<\/p>\n
Rs.6,75,750\/-. In LAA. No.123\/2010 if we were to re-fix the<\/p>\n
land value on the reasoning adopted in this judgment, the<\/p>\n
same will have to be reduced to Rs.5,91,155\/-. However, we<\/p>\n
are not doing so in this appeal preferred by the claimant as<\/p>\n
there is no memorandum of cross objections filed by the<\/p>\n
Railway.\n<\/p>\n
       13. We find element of genuineness in the claims<\/p>\n
raised by the claimants regarding the structure value<\/p>\n
awarded to some of them. We hold that the appellant in<\/p>\n
LAA.No.618\/2009 is eligible for award of additional structure<\/p>\n
value of Rs.5,700\/-.           Similarly we hold that additional<\/p>\n
structure value of Rs.7,360\/- is to be awarded to the claimant<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases    11<\/p>\n
in LAA.No.702\/2009. Similarly, we hold that the appellant in<\/p>\n
LAA. No.562\/2009 is eligible for additional structure value at<\/p>\n
Rs.3,300\/-. We notice genuineness in the grievance of the<\/p>\n
appellant in LAA.No.123\/2010 that he was not paid adequate<\/p>\n
compensation for injurious affection. We award an additional<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.20,320\/- to the appellant in LAA.No.123\/2010<\/p>\n
as additional compensation for injurious affection.      We find<\/p>\n
genuineness in the grievance of the requisitioning authority<\/p>\n
that the claimant in LAA.No.618\/2009 has been awarded<\/p>\n
excessive amount as compensation for injurious affection. In<\/p>\n
that case we reduce the amount of Rs.1 lakh awarded by the<\/p>\n
court below to Rs.80,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
       Result of the above discussion is therefore as follows:<\/p>\n
       LAA.No.702\/2009 is allowed to the extent of awarding a<\/p>\n
further amount of Rs.7,360\/- towards additional structure<\/p>\n
value. LAA.No.562\/2009 is allowed to the extent of awarding<\/p>\n
further structure value of Rs.3,300\/-.      LAA.No.20\/2010 is<\/p>\n
allowed by re-fixing the market value of the land at<\/p>\n
Rs.6,75,750\/- per Are. LAA.No.123\/2010 is allowed to the<\/p>\n
extent of awarding additional amount of Rs.20,320\/- towards<\/p>\n
injurious affection. LAA.No.618\/2009 is allowed re-fixing the<\/p>\n
market value of the land at Rs.7,82,080\/- and by awarding<\/p>\n
L.A.A.562\/09& connected cases       12<\/p>\n
Rs.5,700\/- towards structure value. However, in that case<\/p>\n
the compensation awarded towards injurious affection is<\/p>\n
reduced to Rs.80,000\/-. The claimants will be entitled for<\/p>\n
statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and<\/p>\n
Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total<\/p>\n
enhancement to which they become eligible by virtue of this<\/p>\n
judgment.         However, we clarify that the compensation<\/p>\n
awarded towards injurious affection will not be eligible for<\/p>\n
the benefit under Section 23(2) and 23(1A). Both sides are<\/p>\n
directed to suffer their respective costs.<\/p>\n
                               PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                               C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
okb\/dpk\/ksv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM LA.App..No. 562 of 2009() 1. THOMAS SAMUEL,VELIYATH HOUSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (C), For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM For Respondent :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS […]<\/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-227250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 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\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-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=\"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-24T14:40:30+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-24T14:40:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2277,\"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\\\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-24T14:40:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 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":"Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 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\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-24T14:40:30+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-24T14:40:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010"},"wordCount":2277,"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\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010","name":"Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-24T14:40:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-samuel-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thomas Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 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\/227250","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=227250"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227250\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}