Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF KEALA, REPRESENTED BY versus P.T. RAMANUJAN, SAROJ

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


STATE OF KEALA, REPRESENTED BY v. P.T. RAMANUJAN, SAROJ - LA App No. 774 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 7303 (9 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA App No. 774 of 2006()

1. STATE OF KEALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.T. RAMANUJAN, SAROJ,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

For Respondent :SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN

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

Dated :09/04/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ.

L.A.A. NO. 774 OF 2006

Dated this the 9th day of April, 2007



JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.479 of 1997, on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. The acquisition is for the purpose of National Highway Bypass. The State had come up in appeal on an earlier occasion leading to the judgment in L.A.A.No.341 of 2001. The Reference Court had fixed Rs.60,000/- at that time. This Court, finding that there is no evidence so as to sustain the land value at Rs.60,000/- on the basis of the land value awarded in L.A.R.Nos.68 and 69 of 1993 and observing that the lands covered by L.A.R.Nos.68 and 69 of 1993 are in Kottooli Village whereas the land under acquisition is in Chevayoor Village and apparently there would be difference in the lie of the land, being situated in two villages, remanded the matter for fresh consideration with liberty to the parties to adduce evidence. L.A.A. NO.774 of 2006

2. After remand, the claimant took up a commission and report of the Commissioner is marked as Ext.X1. The Advocate Commissioner found that the property covered by L.A.R.Nos.68 and 69 of 1993 (Ext.A2) and the acquired property are similar and similarly situated. To quote from the judgment:

"Ext.X1 goes to show that the property under Ext.A2 and the property under acquisition are similar in nature and similarly situated. Both these properties are having direct road access from Mavoor road from Chevarambalam, Malaparamba and also from Kalipoika Muthiraparamba road." It was also noted by the Reference Court that: "The respondent did not file any objection to

the Commissioner's report. No evidence was let in by the respondent to shake the evidence tendered by the claimant's witnesses. I find no reason to discard the Commissioner's report." Despite the persuasive arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader that there is no sufficient material available on record so as to sustain the market value at Rs.60,000/- per cent, as granted in L.A.R.Nos.68 and 69 of 1993, we are afraid, we cannot take a different view than that is taken by the Reference Court in view of the reasoning and finding L.A.A. NO.774 of 2006 made by the Reference Court as extracted above. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the property covered by Ext.A2 is a garden land whereas the acquired property is a wet land. It is seen from the award itself that the nature of the land is shown as wet and garden land. The acquisition of the property covered by L.A.R.Nos.68 and 69 of 1993 is for the purpose of a boat-jetty. That apart, there is the unchallenged report of the Advocate Commissioner that the property covered by Exts.A2 and A3 are similar and similarly situated as the acquired property. Therefore, for the only reason that the properties are situated in two villages, in view of the specific finding based on evidence of the Reference Court that the properties are similarly situated and that the acquired property is also situated in an important locality, near to Medical College, Presentation High School, Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan, Chinmaya Vidyalayam, Eden School etc., it cannot be said that the fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per cent, as granted to the property in Ext.A2 and A3, is in any way L.A.A. NO.774 of 2006 unjust and unreasonable. It is also significant to note that Section 4(1) notification in respect of Ext.A2 property was on 26.3.1992, whereas Section 4(1) notification for the acquired property is on 9.12.1993.

3. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the land value fixed in L.A.R.No.417 of 1997, wherein Section 4(1) notification is dated 5.11.1993, is only Rs,20,000/- per cent. But, it has to be seen that that property is situated in a remote area and the distance from the acquired property is more than two kilo metres, as reported by the Advocate Commissioner. There is no road access, as in the case of the acquired property. That property is not situated in an important locality, as in the case of the acquired property. Therefore, for the only reason that the property covered by L.A.R.No.417 of 1997(Ext.A3) happened to be in Chevayoor Village, the contention that the land value for all the properties acquired in Chevayoor Village should be Rs.20,000/- per cent cannot be accepted. The land value is to be fixed taking note L.A.A. NO.774 of 2006 of the various factors like location of the property and the added advantages like road access, nature of the plot etc. On the basis of evidence only, it has been found by the Reference Court that the property covered by L.A.R.No.417 of 1997 is not similarly situated as the acquired property. Additionally, on the basis of the evidence with regard to the advantages of the acquired property only, taking note of the similarity with Ext.A2 property, land value has been fixed at Rs.60,000/- as in the case of L.A.R.Nos.68 and 69 of 1993. For all the above reasons and agreeing with the reasoning and finding of the Reference Court, the Appeal is dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH) Judge (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ KURIAN JOSEPH &

K.T.SANKARAN, JJ.

L.A.A.NO.774 OF 2006

JUDGMENT

9th April, 2007


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.