STATE OF KERALA versus JAYA PRAKASH, PANACHIKKAL HOUSE

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

STATE OF KERALA v. JAYA PRAKASH, PANACHIKKAL HOUSE - LA App No. 789 of 2004 [2007] RD-KL 5046 (8 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA App No. 789 of 2004()

1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Petitioner

Vs

1. JAYA PRAKASH, PANACHIKKAL HOUSE,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

For Respondent :SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :08/03/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. L.A.A.No.789 of 2004 Dated 8th March, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

Kurian Joseph, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.151/02 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. The acquisition was for the purpose of formation of Kuravilangad Major Distributory. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 30.3.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.8,642/- per Are. The reference court enhanced it to Rs.5,185/- per Are. The enhancement is 60%. The claimant produced Ext.A1 document where the land value is Rs.13,750/- per cent. On a detailed discussion regarding the comparability of the land acquired and Ext.A1 document, the reference court held that "the acquired land herein and that involved in Ext.A1 cannot be treated as similar ..." ...."The materials available are not helpful to the claimant to show that the acquired land herein and that in Ext.A1 are similar." Despite such a finding, observing that "For the reasons already discussed above, it has to be concluded that the claimant is not entitled to land value at the rate of the sale consideration in Ext.A1. Still, on account of the fact that the land is not far distant from important  LAA NO.789/04 2 places and taking into account the improvements in the property it has to be concluded that the acquired land herein is more important, entitling the claimant to enhanced land value, though claim under no other head is proved." There is no discussion at all as to the importance of the locality of the acquired land and the improvements in the acquired land, justifying the enhancement. Thus, we are satisfied that the matter requires reconsideration by the reference court. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree in L.A.R.151/02 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam and remit the matter to the reference court for fresh consideration. The case shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In the interests of justice, we make it clear that it will be open to the parties to adduce fresh evidence.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE.

tgs  LAA NO.789/04 3 

KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ

L.A.A. NO. OF 2004

J U D G M E N T

Dated 8th March, 2007. 

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.