High Court of KeralaLA.App./893/2010disposed of

State Of Kerala v. Sudheer

2015-11-26Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon,Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2012/3RD MAGHA 1933 LAA.No. 893 of 2010 ( ) ----------------------------------- LAR.31/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM ...

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

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

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAM KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS:

1. SUDHEER, S/O.THANKAPPAN NADAR, MELATHIL VEEDU, T.C.56/2016, NEDUMCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. SAJITHA, SUBHA SADANAM, THRIKKANNAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ LAA No.893 of 2010 Dated this the 23rd day of January 2012

JUDGMENT

Pius C.Kuriakose, J This appeal preferred by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Nemom Village for the construction of Thrikkannapuram-Poozhikunnu road.

2. Under the impugned award, the value of land has been re-fixed by the reference court at Rs.3,24,107/- per Are.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.Shyam Kumar draws our attention to the judgments of this Court in LAA Nos.286 of 2011 and 400 of 2011. We find from those judgments that for identical lands acquired for the same purpose, this Court has re-fixed the value at Rs.2 lakhs Per Are. Following those judgments, we allow this appeal and re-fix the market

LAA No.893 of 2010 2 value of the land under acquisition at Rs.2 lakhs per Are. This appeal is allowed, however without any order as to costs.

Sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE css/ The judgment dated 23.1.2012 in LAA No.893/2010 is recalled vide order dated 1.3.2013 in R.P.No.185/2013 in LAA No.893/2010.

Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)

LAA No.893 of 2010 3 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ LAA No.893 of 2010 Dated this the 23rd day of January 2012

ORDER

Pius C.Kuriakose, J This appeal is noted as defective for the reason that the second respondent, who was the second claimant before the reference court, is not served with notice. But, we find that the first respondent/first claimant has been served with notice. We find from the impugned award that both the respondents were appearing through the very same advocate before the reference court. We are of the view that the interest of the second respondent in the subject matter of this appeal is adequately

LAA No.893 of 2010 4 represented by the first respondent who is already served. The appeal need not be treated as defective and can be taken up for hearing and disposal.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE css/