.....government as per which, the government fixed the fair value for the property acquired from the claimant as rs.1,31,250/- per are. considering these factors, the sub court fixed the land value @ rs.1,25,000/- per are. the contention of the learned government pleader is that rs.1,31,250/- per are was fixed in the year 2010, whereas the acquisition was in 2004. therefore, the land value would have been much less in 2004.3. we have heard the parties. the contention of the learned government pleader may not be strictly true. the property was acquired in 2004 and the property became government property from then onwards. therefore, the fair value fixed for the government land need not strictly be the correct market value of the property. apart from the same, for a far less important property, by ext.a6 sale deed executed in the year 2000, land value was fixed @ rs.1,29,000/-. comparing these two land values in the year 2000 and 2010, the fixation of land value @ rs.1,25,000/- laa no.274/12 3 does not appear to be on the higher side at all. in the above circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the sub court fixing the land value @ rs.1,25,000/- per are for the acquired land......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTin the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice k.surendra mohan friday, the 12th day of july 2013 21st ashadha, 1935 wp(c).no. 28179 of 2012 (v) ---------------------------- petitioner: ----------- madhu k.v, aged 4 years m.j.bhavan, mattathilkonam, anchal (p.o”306. by adv. sri.b.bala prasannan respondents: ------------- 1. union of india represented by the secretary to government department of agriculture, new delhi-110 001.2. state of kerala represented by the secretary to government department of agriculture, government secretariat thiruvananthapuram. pin-695 001.3. oil palm india ltd. represented by its chairman registered office xiv/130, kottayam south (p.o) kodimatha, kottayam”013. 4. managing director oil palm india ltd., registered office xiv/130 kottayam south (p.o), kodimatha, kottayam”013. rr1 to 3 by adv. sri.s.krishnamoorthy, cgc rr1 by adv. sri.p.parameswaran nair,asg of india r3,r4 by adv. sri.m.gopikrishnan nambiar r3,r4 by adv. sri.p.gopinath r3,r4 by adv. sri.p.benny thomas r3,r4 by adv. sri.k.john mathai r by government pleader sri.t.r.rajesh this writ petition (civil) having been finally heard on 12-07-2013, the court on the sa
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of disability sustained by the the appellant as follows: "it is proved by medical records that in the accident, the petitioner had sustained fracture right femur, fracture right temporal bone, right frontal temporal haematoma and lacerated wound left temporal area and right knee. ext. a6 is a discharge summary issued from west fort hospital, which would indicate that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 22.7.2002 with the above mentioned injuries and he was treated by open reduction and internal fixation with dcs plate and screw and other supportive measures and thereafter he was discharged on 8.8.02. ext. a6 which would further indicate that the petitioner continued follow up treatment till 31.12.02. ext. a7 is a c.t. scan report which shows that the petitioner had sustained right temporal pole and temporo-parietal edh, right temporal pneumocephalus, mild mass effect and midline shift to the left, mild diffuse cerebral oedema, fracture of the greater wing of sphenoid and zygoma on m.a.c.a. no. 3233 of 2009 -:4. :- the right, suggestion of fracture of the right temporal bone and fluid levels due to collected blood in the right maxillary antrum and sphenoid.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....temporary shed very much forms a building as defined under section 2(e) of the kerala building tax act 1975 as per which the assessment is made.2. the mere fact that the petitioner failed to secure a licence from maradu grama panchayath for the purpose of conducting a business in the temporary shed is of not avail. the temporary shed was erected for the purpose of sale of w.p.(c).no.31956 of 201.2 used cars which has been discontinued later. the fact that the temporary shed has been demolished and that a concrete structure was erected in a small portion thereof does not advance the case of the petitioner. exts.p3, p8 and p12 orders impugned in this writ petition therefore calls for no interference in this jurisdiction.3. i however permit the petitioner to pay the balance amount due as tax under the kerala building tax act 1975 in four instalments. the petitioner shall pay the amount in four equal monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2013. the failure to pay any one of the instalments will entitle the respondents to initiate revenue recovery proceedings for the balance amount. the writ petition is disposed of. sd/- v.chitambaresh, judge. /true copy/ p.a. to judge skv
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that this writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to the said remedy and directing the matter to be expedited. in view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to move a suitable application for vacating exhibit p8 interim order, together with an application for advancing the case to a near date. if such applications are filed, the tribunal for local self government institutions, thiruvananthapuram shall take up the said petitions, giving priority to the same and shall pass necessary orders in the matter either finally disposing of the appeal or modifying the interim order, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three weeks of the moving of such applications. sd/-(k.surendra mohan) judge. dsn
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....pending against the petitioners as the matter is settled out of court.2. the prosecution allegation is that, out of animosity against the de facto complainant/3rd respondent, accused 1 to 4 on 30/06/2009 at about 7.30 p.m. came to thoppinakam crl.m.c.no.2864 of 2013 :-2-: junction at valiyathura ward in muttathara village in a maruthi car and attacked the de facto complainant and accordingly he sustained injuries and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 506(ii), 308 & 34 of ipc. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that section 308 of ipc was incorporated with a view to make it as a sessions case. the learned public prosecutor submitted that the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are only incised wounds. now the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court between themselves and the de facto complainant, who is the 3rd respondent herein. annexure-2 is the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant/3rd respondent.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent. i have also heard the learned public prosecutor.4. the learned counsel for the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....kodoth by adv. sri.k.jayesh mohankumar this regular first appeal having been finally heard on 12.07.2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: thottathil b. radhakrishnan & babu mathew p. joseph, jj.----------------------------------------------- r.f.a.no.351 of 2007 & i.a. nos. 1158 and 1326 of 2013 ----------------------------------------------- dated this the 12th day of july, 2013 judgment thottathil b. radhakrishnan, j.the compromise and the plan placed along with the applications are accepted and recorded. the r.f.a. is ordered in terms of such compromise. the said compromise and plan will stand appended to this judgment and the decree that follows. sd/- thottathil b. radhakrishnan, judge sd/- babu mathew p. joseph, judge /true copy/ p.s. to judge kvr/15-7
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the tribunal was absolutely wrong and the tribunal committed a serious error of law in dismissing the application for condoning delay and in fact, the petitioner is entitled to seek recalling of the award before it becomes enforceable under section 17 of the industrial disputes act.4. the short question that has to be considered is whether the tribunal had become functus officio on pronouncing the award on 05.02.2009. a reference of section 17 of the industrial disputes act would show that every award of the tribunal has to be published in a manner prescribed by the government within a period of w.p.(c) no. 11845 of 2010 ..3.. 30 days from the date of the same being received by the appropriate government. the award becomes final only when it is published under section 17(1) of the industrial disputes act. the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in kapra mazdoor ekta union v. birla cotton spinning and weaving mills ltd. & another [(2005) 13 supreme court cases 777], in which while considering the power of the tribunals constituted under the industrial disputes act to recall an award passed in the matter after.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....remove the septic tank of the appellant. therein, the appellant had filed counter affidavit and contested the matter alleging that the pollution, in fact, was caused by the cattle shed, dog shed and cow dung pit in the property of the first respondent. the appellant also produced an order of the secretary which referred to the aforementioned contamination caused in the property of the first respondent. hence, this court took the view that the petitioner therein ought to have first removed the contaminants in his own land and reported before the panchayat and directed the panchayat to take appropriate action then, for remedying any surviving grievance, after hearing the appellant and the first respondent. the said writ petition was disposed of by ext.p3 dated 23.7.2008.3. again, after two years, the first respondent filed the present writ petition, the judgment of which is impugned herein. the 1st respondent contended that though he had removed the contaminants in his property the appellant had failed to demolish and remove the septic tank as directed by the panchayat. the w.ano. 994/2013 ::3:: first respondent also relied on ext.p9 communication of the panchayat, wherein the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in west bengal council of higher secondary education vs ayan das (2007(4) klt 535). the reasoning given therein can be applied depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be read and understood to mean that, in all cases where there is substantial change, second revaluation has to be done, notwithstanding the absence of any provision. if a person like w.p.(c)no. 17425 of 201.3 the petitioner secured only 'one or two' marks out of 100 marks, and got the same doubled in the course of revaluation, it cannot be said that the reasoning given in the said judgment can be automatically applied to call for 'second revaluation' unless there is any glaring inconsistency, despite the proven merits, to be substantiated from the part of the petitioner. in the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner got only '6' marks in place of her expectation for 60% marks. on revaluation, despite the best efforts taken, the valuers could not stretch it beyond '14' marks. this court finds that no interference is warranted; more so in the absence of any enabling provision and also in view of the law declared by the apex court in 2007(4) klt 53.(cited supra), which is the law of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT