High Court of KeralaLA.App./1011/2007dismissed

State Of Kerala v. Sobhana & Others

2015-01-06Honourable Smt. Justice P.V.Asha,Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/16TH POUSHA, 19361 LA.App..No. 1011 of 2007 ( ) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 48/2000 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA DATED 18-01-2005 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1:

------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ALOSYIOUS THOMAS RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENT NO.2:

------------------------------------------------------------

1. SOBHANA, PUTHENKANDATHIL, CHEPPAD.

2. GIRISHKUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN, PUTHENKANDATHIL, KANJOOR, KOTTAKKAKOM MURI CHEPPAD.

3. SUMI, D/O.BHASKARAN, PUTHENKANDATHIL, KANJOOR KOTTAKKAKOM MURI, CHEPPAD.

4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM R1TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V.ASHA, JJ.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1011 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

This appeal is from the judgment in L.A.R.No.48/2000 of Sub Court, Mavelikkara. Section 4(1) notification is dated 19.12.1998 and the extent of property involved is 8.20 Ares. The land acquisition officer awarded land value @ ` 3056/- per Are which was enhanced to ` 6876/- per Are by the reference court. Before the reference court, AW1 was examined and Ext.A1, certified copy of the sale deed, was also relied upon. Even though the court below found that Ext.A1 is not comparable, it was found that enhancement by granting 125% of the land value fixed by the land acquisition officer will be reasonable. We find that the refixation cannot be said to be totally unreasonable. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the reference court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE sv P.V.ASHA, JUDGE