Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE24H DAY OF JANUARY20144TH MAGHA, 1935 LA.App..No. 563 of 2012 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN LAR1232006 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA =============== APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PATHANAMTHITTA.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSTP, KOTTARAKARA DIVISION. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J.
JOSE RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN LAR: ------------------------------------------------- REENA SABU, THEKKETHIL KARUVATTA, PERINGANADU ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY BY ADV. SMT.V.V.RISANI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2401- 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------- L.A.A.No.563 OF2012----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT
State has filed this appeal, challenging the decree and judgment passed in L.A.R.No.123/2006 by the learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta, by which the respondent/claimant was awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the land acquired by him. An extent of 0.08 ares of land belonging to the respondent in survey No.145/21 of Peringanadu village in Adoor Taluk was acquired for the purpose of widening of Kottarakara-Adoor-Chengannur MC road. 4(1) notification was published on 26.07.2003. Land Acquisition Officer fixing the land value @ Rs.10,000/- per are passed the award on 21.02.2005, in which compensation with statutory benefits was fixed for payment to the respondent. Receiving such compensation in protest, he moved for reference of his claim for enhancement. Reference made to the sub court led to the judgment challenged in this appeal. Reference court on the materials placed has re-fixed the compensation payable by enhancing the land value to Rs.80,000/- per are, which had L.A.A. No. 563/2012 2 been fixed at Rs.10,000/- per are by the Land Acquisition Officer. Enhanced compensation was fixed and awarded directing the State to pay such sum with statutory benefits and proportionate costs to the respondent.
2. Learned Government Pleader submitted that even after taking note that Ext.A1 judgment relied by respondent for seeking enhanced compensation was not applicable to his land on guess work alone, without any data, reference court fixed the land value at Rs.80,000/- per are on the basis of land value fixed under Ext.A1 judgment. Ext.A1 judgment was impeached by State in appeal, and setting aside that judgment the case involved had been remitted for fresh consideration, is the submission of Government Pleader. Factual aspects as stated above are not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Going through the judgment passed by learned sub judge also I find land value has been fixed at Rs.80,000/- per are without any data, but, merely assuming that it could be so fixed with reference to the land value fixed in Ext.A1 judgment. Ext.A1 judgment now stands revoked and it is also noticed from the discussion made with reference to that judgment by learned sub judge the land involved in that L.A.A. No. 563/2012 3 case has no comparison or similarity with the land acquired from the respondent. When that be so, the judgment passed by the learned sub judge is liable to set aside, and it is so ordered. Setting aside the judgment, the case is remitted for fresh disposal directing the learned sub judge to dispose it as expeditiously as possible, after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead further evidence, if so desired. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge