Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF KERALA versus MOHAMMEDALI, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


STATE OF KERALA v. MOHAMMEDALI, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU - LA App No. 713 of 2004 [2007] RD-KL 8947 (29 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA App No. 713 of 2004()

1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MOHAMMEDALI, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

For Respondent :SRI.A.AHZAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :29/05/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. L.A.A. Nos.713, 741 & 1071 of 2004 and 1083 OF 2005 Dated 29th May, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

Kurian Joseph, J.

C.M.Appln.No.1482/04 in L.A.A.741/04 : Delay condoned. Aggrieved by the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimants took up the matter before the reference court. The reference court, finding that the fixation of market value on the basis of the basis document is not proper, since the same is of 1991, made an attempt to properly fix the market value based on the evidence available on record. Ext.A1 is the document relied on by the claimants. That is a property lying 200 ft. away from the acquired land and has no direct access to the National Highway. AW2 is the purchaser. It has come out in evidence that the acquired property is of far more importance than the property covered by Ext.A1 and there is no contra evidence either. That evidence is unchallenged also. The land value shown is Rs.37,500/- per cent. It appears there is a mistake; the value of Rs.37,500/- is per Are. The reference court however, found that Ext.A1 has got direct access to the public road whereas such an advantage is not available to the acquired LAA NO.713/04 & connected cases 2 property. It was also found that Section 4(1) notification is of August, 1994 whereas Ext.A1 was executed one year after the notification. On these counts, 10% each in the value of Ext.A1 was deducted and the value was fixed at Rs.30,375/- per Are, though it is wrongly stated in some portions of the judgment that it is per cent. The extent involved in these cases are very meagre (L.A.R.No.17/99-2.62 Ares, L.A.R.20/99- 4.05 Ares, L.A.R.22/99-5.90 Ares and L.A.R.25/99-4.27 Ares). The fixation made by the reference court is based on the evidence available on record and we are of the view that it is just and reasonable. Thus the appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. I.A.3311/04 in L.A.A.713/04, I.A.3503/04 in L.A.A.741/04, I.A.4509/04 in L.A.A.1071/04 and I.A.3126/05 in L.A.A.1083/05 : Dismissed.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

tgs LAA NO.713/04 & connected cases 3 KURIAN JOSEPH &

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ

L.A.A. Nos.713, 741, 1071 of 2004 & 1083 OF 2005

J U D G M E N T

Dated 29th May, 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.